| 1 |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge |
| 3 |
> commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that if |
| 4 |
> the repo ends up being pushed to different places with slightly different |
| 5 |
> histories, merges are absolutely going to be required to prevent somebody from |
| 6 |
> having to rebase at least one of their sets of commits that are already pushed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Can you elaborate on why the cleaner history a no-merge policy |
| 9 |
enforces is a good thing? I actually think that seeing merge commits |
| 10 |
might clarify the history; it can be valuable to see that some mistake |
| 11 |
was made in a merge instead, but you can only see that if there's an |
| 12 |
explicit merge commit. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I should note that I come at this from the Mercurial side, where the |
| 15 |
immutability of (public) history has historically carried more value |
| 16 |
than on the git side (and related to that, rebase-like tools were less |
| 17 |
integrated until relatively recently). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Cheers, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Dirkjan |
Archives