On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.05.2011 21:52: >> >> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got >> merged twice; all commits show up two times. > > What (I think) happened, was that Vitja pulled in Mark's changes into his > unreachable code removal branch, and they ended up in his pull request. I > guess I was assuming that git wouldn't care too much about branch > duplication, so I just accepted the pull request via the web interface. > Apparently, it did care. > > I tend to rebase my local change sets before pushing them, and I think it > makes sense to continue doing that.
+1, I think for as-yet-unpublished changes, it makes the most sense to rebase, but for a longer-term branch, merging isn't as disruptive to the history (in fact is probably more reflective of what's going on) and is much better than duplication. To clarify, is this only a problem when we have A cloned from master B cloned from A (or from master and then pulls in A) A rebases A+B merged into master ? If this is the case, then we could simply make the rule that you should ask before hacking a clone atop anything but master. (Multiple people can share a repeatedly-rebased branch, right.) We could also us the underscore (or another) convention to mean "this branch is being used as a queue, puller beware." Surely other projects have dealt with this. - Robert _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
