On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:04:30 -0500 William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500 > > William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that > > > > I'm a git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like > > > > only committing to master on the gentoo official repository, > > > > and any on-the-side work on places like github/etc stays in > > > > branches? Those repositories would just keep getting fed > > > > commits on master from the official repository. > > > > > > Iagree with this; I think we should ban merge commits on master. > > > That would force everyone to rebase their work on current master > > > before they commit to master which would make the history clean. > > > > So what's the point of switching to git if you want to ban the main > > reason git exists? > > To clarify: we should only allow fast-forward merges on master. > > My big complaint about merge commits is if you do a git show <hash> on > a merge commit, you get nothing, so there is no way to see what > actually changed in that commit. Or you use a graphical tool which shows the whole merge history and you see the exact changes happening rather than some blob with 'do foo, do bar, and some baz too'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
