1 |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:58:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them |
4 |
> > have to be signed once again? |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> |
7 |
> The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either |
8 |
> good or bad based on your perspective). |
9 |
> |
10 |
> So, if 14 devs spend 3 years and 2000 commits working on something in |
11 |
> a branch, and I commit it to master using a rebase, then all you'll |
12 |
> see in the master history is that rich0 committed 20k lines of code to |
13 |
> master on May 31st, and that would be signed by me. |
14 |
|
15 |
You don't commit to master with a rebase,; it is always a merge. The |
16 |
type of merge is what controls what you see in the logs. |
17 |
|
18 |
If you rebase your branch on master, merge to master then run "git pull |
19 |
--rebase" then push, you will get a fast forward merge, which shows the |
20 |
individual commits. |
21 |
|
22 |
If you don't include the rebasing, you get another type of merge which |
23 |
just shows up in the logs as one commit afaik. |
24 |
|
25 |
William |