Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:19:09
Message-Id: 20120531191804.GA24784@linux1
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Rich Freeman
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: > > 1. > > Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge > > commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that if > > the repo ends up being pushed to different places with slightly different > > histories, merges are absolutely going to be required to prevent somebody from > > having to rebase at least one of their sets of commits that are already pushed. > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a > git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only committing > to master on the gentoo official repository, and any on-the-side work > on places like github/etc stays in branches? Those repositories would > just keep getting fed commits on master from the official repository.
Iagree with this; I think we should ban merge commits on master. That would force everyone to rebase their work on current master before they commit to master which would make the history clean. William

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>