André Pönitz <andre.poen...@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de> writes: | On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:54:29PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >> >> >>>Yes, that's where we disagree. I don't see these additional commits as >> >>>good enough reason to drown people in branching mania. Unless someone >> >>>develops new nifty feature or particularly tough bug, he shouldn't >> >>>recognize there is some difference between svn and git. >> >>You seem to have an aversion to branches, while I can't work without >> >>them anymore. >> >There is a difference between (a) using branches for work (implementing >> >stuff, checking out other people's work etc) and (b) having branches in >> >the main repo. (a) does not imply (b). >> >> (a) does not imply (b), but both (a) and (b) imply "branching >> mania". So, given (a), "branching mania" can't be a reason to refuse >> (b). > | (a) is everybody own's business. Nobody will ever know how many | local branches you have used to end up with that single patch or | two that finally go to the main repo. Same for branches in any | private repos you might have used to share previews of your work. | As long as it's not in the main repo, nobody should really care, | and you can use whatever make you feel happy. > | "Branching mania" is only a problem when this kind of structure | gets set in stone in the main repo by merging, instead of, say, | squashing stuff to palatable chunks and cherry-picking the result | to a mostly linear main repo.
Hmm... non-linearity has little to do with branches. It only has to do with parallel development. Forcing something that really is non-linear into somthing that is not good methinks. But sure, it really takes disipline to not end up with "merge-hell", we you let history be non-linear. I rebase for small patches and one-off changes, do real merges for feature branches etc. -- Lgb
