On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > I'm not really sure I understand why we don't want merge commits into > trunk, especially for large changes. Performing archaeology on a change > is just so much easier if the development history is just there.
To some extent it fits with the principle of separating changes to workflow from the actual move to git (as the existing state is that we have a linear history on trunk and the few merge properties that were there were later deleted). So after the conversion we could consider if for future merges we wish to use merge commits. -- Joseph S. Myers j...@polyomino.org.uk
