Re: Recording the current branch on each commit?
- From
- Jeremy Morton <admin@game-point.net>
- Date
- Apr 28, 2014, 09:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <535E1CAD.1020304@game-point.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <535e18cdc7bce_338911e930c72@nysa.notmuch>
On 28/04/2014 10:01, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Jeremy Morton wrote: >> On 27/04/2014 20:33, Johan Herland wrote: >>> The problem is not really "less tidy commit trees" - by which I gather >>> you mean history graphs that are non-linear. IMHO, the history graph >>> should reflect parallel/branched development when that is useful. >>> Blindly rebasing everything into a single line is IMHO just as bad as >>> doing all your work directly on master and blindly running "git pull" >>> between each of your own commits (which results in a lot of useless >>> merges). The merge commits themselves are not the problem. Merge >>> commits are a tool, and when used properly (to introduce topics to the >>> master branch like described above) they are a good tool. When abused >>> (like blindly running "git pull" and accepting useless "merge >>> bubbles") they create more problems than they solve. >> >> Sounds like the default behaviour of "git pull" might not be ideal if it >> easily causes these problems. > > It's not idea. Virtually everyone agrees with that, even Linus Torvalds, and we > have the patches to fix it, but it's not going to change. > > The Git project doesn't welcome change.
Well, you sure don't seem to. Why are there so many "no-can-do" people on this list? :-)
-- Best regards, Jeremy Morton (Jez)