Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: williamh@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:32:58
Message-Id: 20120531213303.57529c85@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by William Hubbs
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson > > <robbat2@g.o> wrote: > > > 1. > > > 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. > > > > 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.
What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them have to be signed once again? -- Best regards, Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature