On 01/31/2016 02:47 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: > On 31 January 2016 at 19:24, Joachim Breitner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am Sonntag, den 31.01.2016, 13:10 -0500 schrieb Geoffrey Mainland: >>> My usual git workflow is to work on a feature branch, get a nice >>> clean set of patches, each of which implements a discrete bit of >>> functionality, rebase onto master, and then merge with an empty >>> merge commit, i..e, *not* fast-forward. >> if you want to go through the trouble, you are certainly welcome to do >> so. The fact that phab squashes commits into one is more an artifact >> of its VCS-agnosticity rather than a deliberate decision by us. >> >> When I want a git history (or just my nice git commit messages) >> preserved, I create a phab differetian revision as usual, but then >> manually amend the git commit to contain the line Differential >> Revision: https://phabricator.haskell.org/Dnnnn and push, once the DR >> has been accepted, by normal git means. I just have to remember to >> indicate in the DR (e.g. in the summary) that I want to do it this >> way. > FWIW, I agree with Geoffrey, and in addition to the benefits he listed, > I appreciate that committing "kernel.org-style" improves bisect'ability. > I used to dislike merge commits myself until I realized the usefulness > of finding merge points in the history. So, I don't understand how > collapsing everything into one big commit can make any sense. > > Is it really impossible to tell phabricator (or arcanist) to preserve > a carefully prepared patch set, and if so, why does it insist on that?
Not that I don't think these things are worth discussing, but to be clear, I was not trying to impose my preferred git workflow on GHC :) I was just looking for clarification, which Joachim provided---thanks! Cheers, Geoff _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs