On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Philip Oakley <philipoak...@iee.org> wrote: > From: "Robert Dailey" <rcdailey.li...@gmail.com> >> >> Here's the scenario: >> >> I create a topic branch so one other developer and myself can work on >> a feature that takes 2 weeks to complete. During that 2 week period, >> changes are occurring on master that I need in my topic branch. Since >> I have a collaborator on the branch, I opt for merges instead of >> rebase. >> >> Each day I merge from master to the topic branch, which changes code >> I'm actively working in and requires semantic changes (functions >> renamed, moved, etc). >> >> Once I'm ready to merge the topic branch back into master, I have two >> options (bearing in mind the goal is to keep history as clean as >> possible. Furthermore this implies that the constant merging into >> topic from master has made the topic branch look unwieldy and >> difficult to audit): > > > a broader question zero; > 0. Is the merge always clean? Do you always do a preparatory fixup! to > ensure that the merge will be clean? > > Ensuring that the merge will be clean should greatly simplify your decision > about process.
I don't understand what you're asking. How would I do a fixup with merges? Can you explain a bit? Normally the only time I use fixup! or squash! is for local changes prior to pushing. >> 1. Do a squash merge, which keeps history clean but we lose context >> for the important bits (the commits representing units of work that >> contribute to the topic itself). >> >> 2. Do a final rebase prior to merging. >> >> #2 doesn't seem to be possible due to patch ordering. For example, if >> I have real commits after merge commits that depend on those changes >> from master being present as a base at that point in time, the rebase >> will cause the patch before it to no longer include those changes from >> master. > > > How much of the historic fixups to cover changes on master do you want to > keep visible? i.e. how many fork-points are truly needed (a. by you, b. by > the project - personal knowledge vs corporate knowledge).? Again, I do not understand. Maybe the first question you asked needs to be understood before I can answer this one. Sorry for the trouble.
