| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 14/09/14 07:21 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sunday 14 September 2014 15:42:15 hasufell wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Patrick Lauer: |
| 7 |
>>>> Are we going to disallow merge commits and ask devs to rebase |
| 8 |
>>>> local changes in order to keep the history "clean"? |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> Is that going to be sane with our commit frequency? |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> You have to merge or rebase anyway in case of a push conflict, so |
| 13 |
>> the only difference is the method and the effect on the history. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Currently... CVS allows you to run repoman on an outdated tree |
| 16 |
>> and push broken ebuilds with repoman being happy. Git will not |
| 17 |
>> allow this. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> iow, git doesn't allow people to work on more than one item at a |
| 20 |
> time? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> That'd mean I need half a dozen checkouts just to emulate cvs, |
| 23 |
> which somehow doesn't make much sense to me ... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I think you'd just need to have a (large) handful of different |
| 27 |
branches, and squash+cherry-pick into master when you're ready to push. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlQXH08ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAZ1gD/WfiMZnu3qesaILhPYEKYy2BP |
| 34 |
MUS2zWJVqYJ8lKp16nUA/1ng1mMxX6pNKZVYIaT/BFuERKz3g0BcLck+XILs3Hth |
| 35 |
=Ul7F |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives