Re: [PATCH] GIT commit statistics.

From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 14, 2005, 21:25 UTC
Message-ID: <46a038f90511141325p23531982kf6a230929bf6d202@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051114092554.GR30496@pasky.or.cz>

On 11/14/05, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:

> All the woes just to get rid of the merge commits. What's wrong on merge
> commits? If they irritate you so much, cg-log -M. ;-)

Well, if you have a team of 5 working closely, doing commit/update several times a day, soon the following things happen:

 - everyone has sightly different histories, even if they all have the same tree
 - in the repo, there are 'update' merges galore.
 - as soon as you _actually_ have branches, it's really hard to
distinguish branch merges from 'same branch update before commit'
merges.

by replacing the daily/hourly intra-team, self-branch `cg-update` with `cg-fetch && git-rebase` our history makes much more sense _and_ looking at gitk I can see clearly again the interesting merges (ie: merges with other branches).

In practice, it's exactly what happens with git's history -- the merges are actually from rebased patches, that's why the history is "readable".

does that make sense?

cheers,

martin