On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 09:04:08AM +0000, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > > On 03/17/2018 10:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 08:01:58PM +0000, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > > >> Commits intended for 2.3.1 should now just go to 2.3.x, with my nod, as > > >> usual. Note that 2.3.2-staging is still live. > > > How did you do the merging? I'm surprised there was no merge commit. Was > > > that because it could be rebased? I'm just curious. > > > > Yes, I rebased before merging. Magic, that. > > Does not rebasing public branch break history for other people working with > 2.3.x branch?
Not in the case where no history needs to be rewritten. The patches just feel on top of 2.3.0. So it was the same as what I think Git refers to as a "fast forward". That said, I would actually prefer a "merge --no-ff". This contains information of when the branch was merged, and where the commits came from (i.e. which branch was merged). For example, we can look back and see when 2.3.1-staging was merged, and whether 2.3.2-staging was merged for 2.3.1 or whether we saved that for after 2.3.1 was released. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
