Hi Justin, Under the new light from this article, I have anything else to say.
Clearly I’m a rebase guy, over all, after suffering at our company the extremely complexity that we reached by using only the merge way. Well, as I told to @Erik, if my proposal didn't like it or didn't was candidate for adopt it, I'll delete it from repository asap. Thanks for your attention. Best regards, ______________________ Jose Barragan Senior Software Engineer Codeoscopic +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com On 10 Jul 2014, at 15:37, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> Nothing is really wrong there, is just for an philosophical criteria based >> on best practices of git. > > Sorry but iMO it's not best practices, its just that a vocal group of git > users think this it's the way to do things(tm) but other git users think > otherwise. We also need to remember that have a central repo, need to apply > with the Apache way of doing things and that can sometimes be at time odds > with the git (or github) way of doing things. IMO Apache values traceability > over a "clean" history. > > A good article about the pro and cons of merge and rebase can be found here > [1], it's interesting to note the Atlasssian approach. > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/10/git-team-workflows-merge-or-rebase/ >
