I wonder if we can loosen the hook script so it allows merge commits between branches but not within them? The main reason merge commits are disliked is when, usually by accident, a merge commit happens within a single branch. That makes for confusing history merely because it was pushed after someone else had updated the branch. If we all stick to the rule of working on branches and only merging down when complete, this shouldn't matter, but a script that prevents accidents would be very handy.
On 8 November 2012 07:30, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > Merge commits have two parents. This is currently disabled by the git hooks > I wrote. Which affects things like GH PR's being automatically closed when > merged to master etc. > > The alternative method is to rebase commits to master which changes the > sha1 which prevents Git from automatically tracking what branches they're > on. > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 7, 2012, at 15:26 , Robert Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > > > After 1.3.0, we agreed to work on feature branches and bugfix branches, > > and > > > then merge the results down after review. > > > > > > We need a change to the git commit hooks to allow merge commits (they > are > > > currently prohibited). Can I get some votes pls? > > > > Can you explain in two sentences each what the effective differences are? > > Just so we have it on record in this thread. > > > > Cheers > > Jan > > -- > > > > >
