On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
> William Hubbs <email@example.com> 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.