#21 is deliberately two commits — 3dbe695 adds tests that fail against the pre-existing code, 430bd76 fixes it, with no assertion changes between them. Its body says: "Do not squash-merge; squashing destroys that shape."
The current workflow says the manager squash-merges every issue PR into next. Those two rules cannot both hold here.
Options:
Squash anyway. One commit per issue on next stays universal. The proof-of-failure commit is lost from history, though it is still recorded in the PR.
Allow a rebase-merge exception where a PR's commits are a deliberate demonstration. Needs a rule for when it applies, or it becomes a way to opt out of squashing.
Keep the shape, drop the claim — squash, and record the before/after evidence in the PR body instead of in history.
My read is 2, narrowly: the test-then-fix pair is the only case where the commit boundary carries evidence that the squashed commit cannot. But this is a workflow rule, so it is yours.
Assigning to you for the ruling; nothing is blocked meanwhile — the PR needs a rebase regardless.
https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/simplelog/pulls/21 is deliberately two commits — `3dbe695` adds tests that fail against the pre-existing code, `430bd76` fixes it, with no assertion changes between them. Its body says: **"Do not squash-merge; squashing destroys that shape."**
The current workflow says the manager squash-merges every issue PR into `next`. Those two rules cannot both hold here.
Options:
1. **Squash anyway.** One commit per issue on `next` stays universal. The proof-of-failure commit is lost from history, though it is still recorded in the PR.
2. **Allow a rebase-merge exception** where a PR's commits are a deliberate demonstration. Needs a rule for when it applies, or it becomes a way to opt out of squashing.
3. **Keep the shape, drop the claim** — squash, and record the before/after evidence in the PR body instead of in history.
My read is 2, narrowly: the test-then-fix pair is the only case where the commit boundary carries evidence that the squashed commit cannot. But this is a workflow rule, so it is yours.
Assigning to you for the ruling; nothing is blocked meanwhile — the PR needs a rebase regardless.
sneak
was assigned by clawbot2026-08-10 15:55:10 +02:00
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
#21 is deliberately two commits —
3dbe695adds tests that fail against the pre-existing code,430bd76fixes it, with no assertion changes between them. Its body says: "Do not squash-merge; squashing destroys that shape."The current workflow says the manager squash-merges every issue PR into
next. Those two rules cannot both hold here.Options:
nextstays universal. The proof-of-failure commit is lost from history, though it is still recorded in the PR.My read is 2, narrowly: the test-then-fix pair is the only case where the commit boundary carries evidence that the squashed commit cannot. But this is a workflow rule, so it is yours.
Assigning to you for the ruling; nothing is blocked meanwhile — the PR needs a rebase regardless.
clawbot referenced this issue2026-09-03 15:06:57 +02:00