| 1 |
On 05/08/2016 05:53 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 08 May 2016 11:06:09 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Amadeusz Żołnowski <aidecoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I am working at the moment on debundling ejabberd. It will come with |
| 6 |
>> ~30 packages and I will do "git merge --no-ff ejabberd-debundled" |
| 7 |
>> because it will actually look less messy. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Thanks, |
| 10 |
>> -- Amadeusz Żołnowski |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yes, this is exactly the type of merge commits that should be allowed. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Not the one or two user PR commits that might be based on a weeks old |
| 16 |
> tree, that a developer merges without rebasing. It is these merge |
| 17 |
> commits which have caused all the grief we've experienced over merge |
| 18 |
> commits. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Merge commits should be used wisely and for larger branch merges like |
| 21 |
> the kde, gnome team's development overlay merges to the main tree or |
| 22 |
> similar larger one off project's like the one above. It is these |
| 23 |
> larger commit branches that are much more difficult to "git pull |
| 24 |
> --rebase && git push --signed" successfully without some other pushes in |
| 25 |
> between causing a rejected non-fast forward push. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
I think you touched on the key phrase we should be taking from the |
| 28 |
conversation: 'merges without rebasing'. Devs are encouraged -- if not |
| 29 |
required -- to push commits after rebasing, to ensure we're pushing to |
| 30 |
the latest HEAD and not something that's stale. If we hold merges to the |
| 31 |
same standard, would the problems that some have with merge commits |
| 32 |
disappear? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 37 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives