1 |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500 |
3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a |
5 |
> > > git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only |
6 |
> > > committing to master on the gentoo official repository, and any |
7 |
> > > on-the-side work on places like github/etc stays in branches? |
8 |
> > > Those repositories would just keep getting fed commits on master |
9 |
> > > from the official repository. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Iagree with this; I think we should ban merge commits on master. That |
12 |
> > would force everyone to rebase their work on current master before |
13 |
> > they commit to master which would make the history clean. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> So what's the point of switching to git if you want to ban the main |
16 |
> reason git exists? |
17 |
|
18 |
To clarify: we should only allow fast-forward merges on master. |
19 |
|
20 |
My big complaint about merge commits is if you do a git show <hash> on |
21 |
a merge commit, you get nothing, so there is no way to see what actually |
22 |
changed in that commit. |
23 |
|
24 |
William |