On 12/8/2018 11:32 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Whether the UX counts as "good" or not is open to debate (I consider
it pretty good for the complexity of the task it handles), but if you
ever want to revise the history of a complex patch series to make it
easier for reviewers to follow:
1. Use "git
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 09:10, Steve Dower wrote:
> And let's be honest, there's no good tooling for turning a series of
> interdependent commits into a smaller set of sensible ones. Squashing at
> least gets rid of the changes that were reverted as part of the entire
> PR, and if you then just want
