Jeremy Morton wrote: > On 28/04/2014 10:01, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Jeremy Morton wrote: > >> On 27/04/2014 20:33, Johan Herland wrote: > >>> The problem is not really "less tidy commit trees" - by which I gather > >>> you mean history graphs that are non-linear. IMHO, the history graph > >>> should reflect parallel/branched development when that is useful. > >>> Blindly rebasing everything into a single line is IMHO just as bad as > >>> doing all your work directly on master and blindly running "git pull" > >>> between each of your own commits (which results in a lot of useless > >>> merges). The merge commits themselves are not the problem. Merge > >>> commits are a tool, and when used properly (to introduce topics to the > >>> master branch like described above) they are a good tool. When abused > >>> (like blindly running "git pull" and accepting useless "merge > >>> bubbles") they create more problems than they solve. > >> > >> Sounds like the default behaviour of "git pull" might not be ideal if it > >> easily causes these problems. > > > > It's not idea. Virtually everyone agrees with that, even Linus Torvalds, > > and we > > have the patches to fix it, but it's not going to change. > > > > The Git project doesn't welcome change. > > Well, you sure don't seem to. Why are there so many "no-can-do" people > on this list? :-)
I don't seem to what? I'm the one arguing for change, and I sent the patches to fix this default behavior. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
