On 27/12/2019 11:35, Joseph Myers wrote: > 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. >
Well, personally, I'd rather we didn't throw away data we have in our current SVN repo unless it's unpresentable in the final conversion. Merge info is not one of those cases. R.
