| 1 |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a |
| 5 |
> > > git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only |
| 6 |
> > > committing to master on the gentoo official repository, and any |
| 7 |
> > > on-the-side work on places like github/etc stays in branches? |
| 8 |
> > > Those repositories would just keep getting fed commits on master |
| 9 |
> > > from the official repository. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Iagree with this; I think we should ban merge commits on master. That |
| 12 |
> > would force everyone to rebase their work on current master before |
| 13 |
> > they commit to master which would make the history clean. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So what's the point of switching to git if you want to ban the main |
| 16 |
> reason git exists? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
To clarify: we should only allow fast-forward merges on master. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
My big complaint about merge commits is if you do a git show <hash> on |
| 21 |
a merge commit, you get nothing, so there is no way to see what actually |
| 22 |
changed in that commit. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
William |
Archives