Kent Fredric posted on Sun, 08 May 2016 21:25:38 +1200 as excerpted: > On 8 May 2016 at 20:58, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> Or to put it a different way, if we're not going to use git's rich >> distributed branch development and tracking, forcing everything to >> single chain on the main tree, why did we bother switching to git in >> the first place? That was available on cvs, or if we wanted more >> features, subversion, etc. > > I think the annoyance is more having two histories, where on one side, > you've got the high-traffic gentoo work flow happening, and then you > have a merge commit .... > > And that merge commit may have only a single commit on it, and its > parent is god-knows how many days old. > > So the "graph" looks *massive* when it is really only a single commit > and its merge commit. > > I think the most productive thing here is not to ban "merge commits" as > such, but ban merge commits where the "merge base" ( that is, the common > ancestor of the left and right parents of the merge commit ) leaves a > significant number of commits on the "left" side of the equation. [...]
> "Long histories that go for days only to merge one commit" tend to harm > this, and I think that's the essential irritation. OK, that I can agree with. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
