On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
have to be signed once again?