1 |
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
2 |
> C Bergström wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
>> 3) Ever tried to make a patch of the *actual* merge commit? Can one of |
5 |
>> the advocates of merge show me the git command to do that? (Sure you |
6 |
>> can diff between 2 commits, but the "merge" commit likes to avoid |
7 |
>> being seen) |
8 |
> |
9 |
> If there are no conflicts when merging then the merge commit does not |
10 |
> contain any changes, so how could there be a patch? Do you actually |
11 |
> know the Git data model? I wrote it down the other day. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> http://peter.stuge.se/git-data-model |
14 |
|
15 |
You deflect the question so nicely. If there is no merge conflict then |
16 |
a rebase would be just fine? |
17 |
|
18 |
You clearly know git very well - much better than I, why not just |
19 |
answer the question? |
20 |
|
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
>> 4) I disagree that even a very active repo will have a problem with |
24 |
>> rebase - Why? |
25 |
>> a. If devs aren't working in the same area there will be no conflicts |
26 |
>> b. If |
27 |
> |
28 |
> It's not about conflicts. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
>> and a "git pull --rebase" before push will be clean and fast (no |
32 |
>> problems). |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Q: How do you deal with the two commits from other developers that |
35 |
> were pushed while you were rebasing? |
36 |
> |
37 |
> A: You end up having to spin on the remote repo. That's really clumsy. |
38 |
|
39 |
Pragmatically - the answer to you question is the same as it exists |
40 |
today. You're scared of something which gentoo devs have been dealing |
41 |
with and resolving for years. It's not like CVS/SVN handles this |
42 |
magically better. |
43 |
|
44 |
> |
45 |
> |
46 |
>> 5) More about linear commits and "history" - I need to double check, |
47 |
>> but I don't think rebase changes the actual commit date (I could be |
48 |
>> mistaken). |
49 |
> |
50 |
> You are mistaken, and should have double checked before you argued. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Arguing without checking makes you look bad. |
53 |
|
54 |
How? I didn't claim to know and clearly not knowing didn't seem |
55 |
important (to me). I'm not trying to overstate anything. I'm just |
56 |
trying to passionately bring this up. I ***wish*** someone with some |
57 |
guts would actually take charge of this on the gentoo side, have a |
58 |
vote or make some executive decision which is stronger than this wimpy |
59 |
policy we have now. |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> |
63 |
>> The only advantage to merge is you could see that the commit |
64 |
>> happened on the "1st" ${DATE-TIME} of the month |
65 |
> |
66 |
> That's not correct. |
67 |
> |
68 |
>> I can't say I've ever cared to know the date of a commit, but I can |
69 |
>> say I have cared a lot about knowing which commit came 1st. Rebase, |
70 |
>> for better or worse, forces something to be 1st and it's clear and |
71 |
>> easy to see. |
72 |
> |
73 |
> A rebase, like a cherry-pick, loses the very information you claim to |
74 |
> care about; the original parent of the commit. |
75 |
|
76 |
To clarify - I don't (clearly) give a pooh what the original parent |
77 |
was. I care much more about a linear history. I rarely can see any |
78 |
value of the at-to-time of original commit compared to the final |
79 |
at-push-time commit (what's rebased). The value of linear history |
80 |
outweighs the arbitrary point you started from. imho a commit and |
81 |
development is not done until it's ready to be pushed. |
82 |
|
83 |
> |
84 |
> |
85 |
>> If I controlled the gentoo git server, I'd |
86 |
> |
87 |
> I think it's a good thing that you don't, since you seem to still |
88 |
> need to study Git in more detail. |
89 |
|
90 |
Peter - I'm ashamed of you - don't be a dick. We can keep this civil |
91 |
without subtle insults. I understand you are one of the people who |
92 |
feels strongly about this in the opposing way. I wish I could flip |
93 |
your way of thinking, but git brings out a lot of strong |
94 |
religious-like views. (immutable) |