Re: [PATCH] GIT commit statistics.

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Nov 13, 2005, 11:11 UTC
Message-ID: <20051113111130.GN30496@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90511120419v70166c60t93d58b7544e03e3b@mail.gmail.com>

Dear diary, on Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 01:19:45PM CET, I got a letter where Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> said that...

> Similarly, when dealing with an upstream, my tree gets slowly out of
> sync and slightly messy.

I've been replying only to this, but missed the team shared repo case, where StGIT obviously does not make much sense.

> Related to this, I've been wondering whether it'd be possible to teach
> git to rebase local patches, even if that means rewriting local
> history. When you are dealing with team shared repo, the sequences of
> pull/push end up being quite messy, full of little meaningless merges.

Well, only pulls make up for merges. But what's wrong with that? This is just what you get when using distributed VCS, and what's the point in skewing the history to look different than how did it happen? I'd just get used to it. :-)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.