| 1 |
On 10 May 2016 at 00:23, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> which introduces some of the uncleanliness of non-rebased |
| 3 |
> merge commits. In general I'm a fan of rebasing merge commits. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Non-rebased merge commits are worst when the merge involves a |
| 7 |
collision resolution. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
While you can in theory rebase merge commits with rebase --preserve, |
| 10 |
my experience has shown me that its very difficult to get right, and |
| 11 |
the presence of merge collisions in the "preserved" rebase risks |
| 12 |
getting the conflict resolution lost mid-rebase, which is not entirely |
| 13 |
helpful. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If there was something we could feasibly put hard software policy |
| 16 |
constraints against without any subjective "but but but" cases, it |
| 17 |
would be these cases of "merge included conflicts". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Kent |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives