| 1 |
Sunday 05 Jul 2015 16:03:27, hasufell wrote : |
| 2 |
> On 07/05/2015 06:10 AM, C Bergström wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>> 5) More about linear commits and "history" - I need to double check, |
| 4 |
> >>> but I don't think rebase changes the actual commit date (I could be |
| 5 |
> >>> mistaken). |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> You are mistaken, and should have double checked before you argued. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Arguing without checking makes you look bad. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > How? I didn't claim to know and clearly not knowing didn't seem |
| 12 |
> > important (to me). I'm not trying to overstate anything. I'm just |
| 13 |
> > trying to passionately bring this up. I ***wish*** someone with some |
| 14 |
> > guts would actually take charge of this on the gentoo side, have a |
| 15 |
> > vote or make some executive decision which is stronger than this wimpy |
| 16 |
> > policy we have now. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Most of what you brought up wasn't really useful critique, but rather |
| 20 |
> noise based on your personal frustration with git. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> This thread is not about giving lectures on how git works. We appreciate |
| 23 |
> useful comments on the git workflow. But in order to give useful |
| 24 |
> comments, you have to know and understand the project and how it works |
| 25 |
> internally. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> There will be a sh*tload of developer, feature and whatnot branches. It |
| 28 |
> is just insane to tell everyone to unconditionally do rebases |
| 29 |
> everywhere. You haven't even commented on a fraction of the resulting |
| 30 |
> problems. So please lets stop this discussion and move on. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
+1 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
How about you guys carry on this discussion somewhere else in a place like, |
| 36 |
I don't know, IRC? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
#which-git-workflow-fits-best-my-needs |
Archives