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 |