On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Simon Schick <simonsimc...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> 2012/3/19 Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com>: > > Simon, > > > > Yes that's a great recommendation and it should definitely be included > > IMHO! However, the merge.ff option is relatively new and is not > available > > in many older Git clients that are still in use. So the --no-ff tag will > > still probably be necessary for some people. Perhaps we should recommend > > both, or would that make things too confusing? > > > > --Kris > > > > Hi, Kris > > Don't really know ... Do you know which version of GIT is the first > who implements this feature? Would it be a problem to require an > update or the people should find their own solution? > I think that people who don't know much about GIT or are just starting > with GIT should be fine with that as they haven't done much with that > or just installed the latest version. > The only problem I can see here is that some linux-distributions > (Debian for example) tends to keep old versions in their repositories > ;) Anyways ... > I think it would be max-information to link the > stackoverflow-discussion there if someone has a question to that. But > this (of course) has to be describe it in a easy understandable way :) > and I think that's the most dificult part. > > Bye > Simon > I don't know off the top of my head which version it was implemented in, but I'm pretty sure it was relatively recent. Here's what I wound-up doing: The merge entries on the workflow page now contain "--no-ff" and I added an entry to the FAQ about the merge.ff option available in newer clients. This way we should be covered either way. =) --Kris
