+1 In the interest of full disclosure, the only good excuse for non fast-forward commit messages is when you are merging a significant chunk of a code back into the master, e.g. with feature development, hot fixes, releases, etc. In such a case having an extra piece of historical reference might be helpful (see http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ as a pretty good outline).
Cos On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:38AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > I recommend we do not push merge commits upstream. I suppose it is easy > enough to filter them out when looking at history but there is no need to > be merging upstream branches into your local tracking branch when you can > rebase instead. In this way we can avoid polluting the history in the > master repository with unnecessary merge commit entries. (And maybe some > devs will be merging upstream into tracking branches or merging commits > from local feature branches several times per day, and these will all > accumulate...) > > When updating your local tracking branch from upstream, use git fetch > upstream && git rebase upstream/branch instead of 'git merge'. > > When developing features on a local branch it's possible to do a squash > commit from the feature branch to the tracking branch using 'git rebase' > instead of 'git merge', then a push of the single squashed commit from the > tracking branch to the upstream branch. > > If these workflow choices are acceptable by consensus we can update the > 'how to commit' document with an illustration of the workflow with example > commands. > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
