1 |
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> * However... as the past months have shown, when using merges it is much |
4 |
> easier to accidentally mess up the entire tree than using rebases alone. |
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
How does a merge make it any easier/harder to mess up the entire tree? |
8 |
I can see how they can make the history easier/harder to read but in |
9 |
the end I believe the content of the tree itself ends up being |
10 |
whatever was in the index when you made the commit. |
11 |
|
12 |
> |
13 |
> * The only alternative would be to come up with criteria for merges and |
14 |
> actually enforce them (meaning, if you mess up the tree more than twice you |
15 |
> lose your push access. Hello QA.). |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
Here is the other only alternative: use rebase commits when they're |
19 |
most appropriate, and use merge commits when they're most appropriate, |
20 |
and publish easy-to-understand guidelines for when each is the case. |
21 |
I don't really see a need for hard rules unless we think devs can |
22 |
actually comply with them. Do we really want somebody to lose their |
23 |
commit access because they pushed a string of rebased commits that |
24 |
might have been more appropriate as a single merge commit? |
25 |
|
26 |
Both types of commits have their place. I think that bans are better |
27 |
used for bad attitude than for mistakes. I don't think you need a |
28 |
100% rigid rule to enforce a ban either - this isn't a court of law |
29 |
(and I think many of the failings of courts of law result from the |
30 |
rigid application of rules, but that is a different matter). |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Rich |