Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:18:42
Message-Id: CAKmKYaBu+tpOR4dE2vnOn6miVUq6jmo7hLr_c9XJ6dvH6hTccg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by "Robin H. Johnson"
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
> Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge > commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that if > the repo ends up being pushed to different places with slightly different > histories, merges are absolutely going to be required to prevent somebody from > having to rebase at least one of their sets of commits that are already pushed.
Can you elaborate on why the cleaner history a no-merge policy enforces is a good thing? I actually think that seeing merge commits might clarify the history; it can be valuable to see that some mistake was made in a merge instead, but you can only see that if there's an explicit merge commit. I should note that I come at this from the Mercurial side, where the immutability of (public) history has historically carried more value than on the git side (and related to that, rebase-like tools were less integrated until relatively recently). Cheers, Dirkjan

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>