On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:04:30 -0500
William Hubbs <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
> > William Hubbs <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Or you use a graphical tool which shows the whole merge history and you
see the exact changes happening rather than some blob with 'do foo, do
bar, and some baz too'.