Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:04:30 -0500
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

Attachment:
pgpqB9Wxz7Z0b.pgp (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- James Cloos
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Michał Górny
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Peter Stuge
References:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- William Hubbs
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Previous by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.