| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:03:29PM +0700, C Bergström wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > C Bergström posted on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 01:17:41 +0700 as excerpted: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> I super don't like "merge" workflows. |
| 6 |
> >> 1) "merge commits" are confusing at best and normal tools don't display |
| 7 |
> >> and work with them as you'd always expect |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > git log --graph, as others have mentioned. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> we are not talking about the same thing. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I want to see the "diff" - not the graph. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> svn diff -r 1234 |
| 16 |
> git show <hash> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> show me the "merge" commit in diff format |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So this isn't a good comparison. You are asking for a merge commit in |
| 21 |
git and a normal commit in svn. Svn can branch but it is so complicated |
| 22 |
that no one ever does it. If you were similarly to never ever make |
| 23 |
branches in git its not a huge deal. (There are not *that* many pushes |
| 24 |
to the tree, if you look at #gentoo-commits there is plenty of time |
| 25 |
between commits.) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
While I personally rebase almost all of my stuff, merges are important |
| 28 |
when taking contributions. A good example would be the main linux kernel |
| 29 |
tree, if Linus were to merge everything it would be incredibly difficult |
| 30 |
to figure anything out. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- Jason |
Archives