On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Can you elaborate on why the cleaner history a no-merge policy
enforces is a good thing? I actually think that seeing merge commits
might clarify the history; it can be valuable to see that some mistake
was made in a merge instead, but you can only see that if there's an
explicit merge commit.
I should note that I come at this from the Mercurial side, where the
immutability of (public) history has historically carried more value
than on the git side (and related to that, rebase-like tools were less
integrated until relatively recently).