Normally when I merge a PR I put the long PR message (if there is one) in the merge commit (again if there is one), rather than shitty Merge PR from patch1 that people seem to use.
If I’m not keeping the branch (usually PRs are not big enough to make preserving multiple commits useful) then I squash & merge which gives you the chance to edit the commit message and copy details from the PR message in.
I hate the default merge commits. I got quite frustrated when a FOSS project rejected (or didn’t come to a conclusion) my proposal for merge commits to also follow the commit formatting guidelines.
The cherry on top is merge commits describing which branch is being merged. But the branch disappears with that merge. I consider it worthless. The branch name is a name of the drafting process. There is no value to it when it lands.
Normally when I merge a PR I put the long PR message (if there is one) in the merge commit (again if there is one), rather than shitty
Merge PR from patch1that people seem to use.You can actually change the behaviour on GitHub to be sane: https://blog.mergify.com/how-to-change-the-default-commit-message-on-github/amp/
If I’m not keeping the branch (usually PRs are not big enough to make preserving multiple commits useful) then I squash & merge which gives you the chance to edit the commit message and copy details from the PR message in.
I hate the default merge commits. I got quite frustrated when a FOSS project rejected (or didn’t come to a conclusion) my proposal for merge commits to also follow the commit formatting guidelines.
The cherry on top is merge commits describing which branch is being merged. But the branch disappears with that merge. I consider it worthless. The branch name is a name of the drafting process. There is no value to it when it lands.
One of the reasons I hate merge commits and just force linear history on the repos I control.