Re: [PATCH 10/10] push: teach push to be quiet if local ref is strict subset of remote ref

From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Nov 1, 2007, 09:29 UTC
Message-ID: <47299C67.1090309@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <0A8A6A99-4C8B-4056-9068-DA54B69B08B5@zib.de>

Steffen Prohaska wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> 
> On Nov 1, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> 
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> (actually, shared repository people seem to
>>> prefer "fetch + rebase" over "pull" which is "fetch + merge").
>>
>> That's definitely true. The number of useless merge-commits we
>> have in our repos is annoying, and has twice made bisect a bit
>> troublesome for no good reason.
> 
> Can you describe a bit more what's "annoying" about them?
> Is it the visualization? Or are there more problems; like
> the trouble with bisect?
>

Visualization is a small nuissance. git-bisect troubles are more worrisome. I've been in the seat where useless merges means git bisect needs constant babysitting and constant manual handling. It's no fun at all, so we're sticking with the fetch+rebase flow.

> I'm trying to estimate if it's worth teaching _all_
> developers rebase or if we should just live with the "useless"
> merge-commits.
>

I'd say that depends on how valuable you find gitk, qgit and git-bisect are. To me, I'd happily use any scm in the world, so long as it has git-bisect. Otoh, I'm a lazy bastard and love bisect so much that all our automated tests are focused around "git bisect run". This means bugs in software released to customers are few and far apart. When we get one reported, we just create a new test that exposes it, fire up git-bisect and then go to lunch. Quality costs, however. We pay that bill by using a workflow that's perhaps more convoluted than necessary.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231