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. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
