From: Andreas Krey Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 17:11:10 GMT Subject: Re: first parent, commit graph layout, and pull merge direction 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: ... > 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 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800