Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: williamh@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:32:58
Message-Id: 20120531213303.57529c85@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by William Hubbs
1 On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
2 William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
5 > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson
6 > > <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
7 > > > 1.
8 > > > Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would
9 > > > disallow merge commits, so that we would get a cleaner history.
10 > > > However, it turns out that if the repo ends up being pushed to
11 > > > different places with slightly different histories, merges are
12 > > > absolutely going to be required to prevent somebody from having
13 > > > to rebase at least one of their sets of commits that are already
14 > > > pushed.
15 > >
16 > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a
17 > > git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only
18 > > committing to master on the gentoo official repository, and any
19 > > on-the-side work on places like github/etc stays in branches?
20 > > Those repositories would just keep getting fed commits on master
21 > > from the official repository.
22 >
23 > Iagree with this; I think we should ban merge commits on master. That
24 > would force everyone to rebase their work on current master before
25 > they commit to master which would make the history clean.
26
27 What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
28 have to be signed once again?
29
30 --
31 Best regards,
32 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies