From: Stephen Haberman <stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:36:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Heads up: major rebase -i -p rework coming up
Message-ID: <20090127163650.34581368.stephen@exigencecorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090128071054.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com>


> >     a -- b -- c  origin/feature
> >       \
> >        d -- e    feature
> >            /
> >       ... g      origin/master

> Sorry for asking a basic question, but if "feature" is a topic branch
> for advance the feature, why are you merging origin/master into it?
> Doesn't it blur the theme of the branch by including "development of
> the feature and all the random things that happened while it was being
> developed in other places"?

We merged origin/master because a release had just happened (e.g. master
moved from 1.0 -> 1.1), and when QA looks at origin/feature, they wanted
to see it integrated with the latest release (e.g. 1.1).

Now, granted, if feature was a private/unpublished branch, we would
rebase the entire thing (a/b/c) on top of master (g), but a/b/c has
already been published to our bug tracker, email lists, and other
developers who are collaborating on origin/feature, so between polluting
feature with a merge from master and changing the published hashes, we
chose the merge.

- Stephen