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 22:05:26
Message-Id: 20120531220430.GA26086@linux1
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500 > William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: > > > 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. > > So what's the point of switching to git if you want to ban the main > reason git exists?
To clarify: we should only allow fast-forward merges on master. My big complaint about merge commits is if you do a git show <hash> on a merge commit, you get nothing, so there is no way to see what actually changed in that commit. William

Replies