On 21/10/13 07:41, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
This latter thing bothered me too initially (with GitHub) as I was
used to just pulling from the main repo to my local machine and
submitting patches via email; but I quickly realized that it was
actually sensible, and that those user repos are just places to
publish one's own branches, which can then be submitted to the
central project for merging.
What me drives crazy is the structure of the main git repository. If
you follow github style, the graph gets littered with zillions of
`merge request' commits, one per pull request, which makes it quite
hard to follow the development IMHO.
It's true it can get annoying if you have lots of one-commit contributions. On
the other hand it lends itself to being able to split your contributions into
multiple separate commits for which the main git history simply gets a summary
(the merge commit).
I still think it's ultimately worth it for the discipline of "No one pushes
directly to master", which helps enforce a requirement that everything gets
tested and reviewed, even stuff by core developers.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
