1 link tagged with all of: code review + squash and merge + testing + refactoring
Click any tag below to further narrow down your results
Links
The author argues for splitting mechanical and “real” changes into separate, even temporarily broken, commits to make code reviews simpler. By using squash-and-merge, you get a clean long-term history while reviewing a step-by-step narrative that’s easier to validate.
- Splitting mechanical changes (formatting, lint fixes, renames) from real changes into separate commits makes each piece independently verifiable, even if intermediate commits fail tests or don't compile.
- Squash-and-merge lets you write a detailed step-by-step commit history for reviewers while keeping the main branch history clean as a single atomic commit.
- Renaming a file/function in its own commit prevents it from looking like a delete-and-recreate in diffs.
- AI-generated "all-in-one" patches should be broken into narrated, staged commits so reviewers can catch bugs hidden in the bulk of the change.