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: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:00:43
Message-Id: 20120601055951.1160c69a@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by William Hubbs
On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:04:30 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:

> 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.
Or you use a graphical tool which shows the whole merge history and you see the exact changes happening rather than some blob with 'do foo, do bar, and some baz too'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

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