Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction

From: Andreas Krey <a.krey@gmx.de>
Date: May 24, 2013, 17:11 UTC
Message-ID: <20130524171110.GB9448@inner.h.apk.li>
In-Reply-To: <7vd2shheic.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:01:15 +0000, Junio C Hamano wrote: ...

Show 15 quoted lines

> Instead of having a nice "these six commits marked as 'x' were done
> on a branch forked some time ago, to address only this one issue and
> to address it fully" history that explains how these commits were
> related and these commits are the full solution to a single issue:
> 
>       x---x---x---x---x---x
>      /                     \
>  ---o---o---o---o---o---o---M---o---o---...
> 
> they end up with something like this, even with the "flip the heads
> of a merge" option, by pulling too often:
> 
>       x---x   x---x---x   x
>      /     \ /         \ / \
>  ---o---o---M---o---o---M---M---o---o---...

Wouldn't that be (you don't want to put your work back into master before it's done) the following?

       x---x---M---x---x---M--x
      /       /           /    \
  ---o---o---M---o---o---M--o---M---o---o---...

With a bit of luck the first-parent strands will also run like this.

I know that rebasing topic branches is better than updating, but my monetary upstream is busy letting go a clearcase-minted mindset. Teaching them rebasing will take a while, and as long as tthat we will have the picture above.

Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800