1 |
On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:04:30 -0500 |
2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
5 |
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500 |
6 |
> > William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that |
8 |
> > > > I'm a git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like |
9 |
> > > > only committing to master on the gentoo official repository, |
10 |
> > > > and any on-the-side work on places like github/etc stays in |
11 |
> > > > branches? Those repositories would just keep getting fed |
12 |
> > > > commits on master from the official repository. |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > Iagree with this; I think we should ban merge commits on master. |
15 |
> > > That would force everyone to rebase their work on current master |
16 |
> > > before they commit to master which would make the history clean. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > So what's the point of switching to git if you want to ban the main |
19 |
> > reason git exists? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> To clarify: we should only allow fast-forward merges on master. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> My big complaint about merge commits is if you do a git show <hash> on |
24 |
> a merge commit, you get nothing, so there is no way to see what |
25 |
> actually changed in that commit. |
26 |
|
27 |
Or you use a graphical tool which shows the whole merge history and you |
28 |
see the exact changes happening rather than some blob with 'do foo, do |
29 |
bar, and some baz too'. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Best regards, |
33 |
Michał Górny |