On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:16:59AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What I am trying to achieve is to use git in the proper way: that is, > > in a way which makes merging work properly. > > > > Insisting that I use git in a manner which makes merges break but > > gives prettier logfiles is absurd. > > That's why you should avoid using the branch as basis to others until > it's clean and also avoid to make it public (without a reason) too.
This makes it more difficult to ask for review while the branch is in progress, which is a valuable property. It is ridiculous to artificially avoid making branches public; a branch is a useful means of collaboration and we should take advantage of it as such. > Usually, I make branches public when my log looks sane. > > And it's not absurd, is to allow everyone to be kept sane when looking > the log in 5 years forward. I have never once run into this problem with other revision control systems in which branching and merging are common. Somehow it just never seems to be a real issue. I contend that dpkg is not big enough for it to become a real issue. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]