| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 23:13:26 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrice Clement <monsieurp@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> In the case of Gentoo though, it makes no sense. We should strive for |
| 5 |
> keeping a clean and linear history. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
A DAG is what I would call linear history :) |
| 9 |
Merge commits preserve that structure, git log performs a topological |
| 10 |
sort on the history DAG, effectively showing it to you as a timeline. |
| 11 |
Now, topsort is kind of classical, very efficient, algorithm so why |
| 12 |
should I care doing this sorting manually when git does it faster and |
| 13 |
better than I would ever do ? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Also, if you want to see linear history, why do you use git log |
| 16 |
--graph ? This seems to me you're inventing your own problems :) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> By avoiding merge commits, we make sure the history stay linear with |
| 20 |
> no parent/child commits all over the place. It leads us to the two |
| 21 |
> remaining solutions for dealing with PRs in a clean fashion: |
| 22 |
> cherry-picking and git am. These two solutions really shine at |
| 23 |
> keeping a sane history. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
git merge ... |
| 26 |
git rebase origin/master |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
this kills the merge commit and reparents the commits you merged to |
| 30 |
the tip of origin/master |
Archives