Re: rebasing merges
- From
Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
- Date
- Sep 23, 2008, 09:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20080923043039.bf380694.stephen@exigencecorp.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <48D8B2C1.5070800@op5.se>
> > Does this sound reasonable? > > It sounds very reasonable indeed
Ah, cool, thanks for validating our approach. We have so far been slowly figuring it out and it has been nice.
> but then I don't understand why you held off pushing the merge.
Ah, yes, that is the trick, to get it out quickly. Usually it is not a problem, but in ~2-3 months of using git, it's happened on high-churn branches about 4-5 times (usually it is the next release candidate branch where people are actively making small bug fixes and one guy gets caught with a non-trivial merge in from stable).
Not all that bad, really, other than it caused a few "wtf git" comments. Which is unfortunate as, while I enjoy git, the team as a whole is still learning. Seeing the DAGs, and understanding the patch/apply approach of the non-interactive rebase, it makes sense to me what git is doing. And so while I know to watch for it, I'm trying to find a more bullet proof approach.
> That's beside the point though, as I firmly believe git should be more > helpful in this situation. If "git rebase -i -p" doesn't help you fix > the problems, I'll see what I can do to help.
That's very cool, thanks. I'll start writing a test now.
- Stephen