> There is only one good rule though - no merge commmits in the history :) Ever. Do whatever you want beyond that. A clean, simple history for each branch is the only sensible use of Git I've seen.
+1 > > - Mark > > > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The main benefit I see is that external contributors would get their >> name in the commit log. >> >> However on the other hand, I'm a bit annoyed that people easily >> disagree on the workflow: some people merge into the maintenance >> branch first and then to master, other people merge into master first >> and then cherry-pick, other people prefer rebasing instead of merging, >> etc. I personally don't really care but if we agree on moving to Git, >> I hope we can agree on the workflow at the same time. At least today >> with svn we have something simple that everybody agrees on. >> >> -0: I'm not against it but Subversion works well for me today. If >> everybody else agrees on switching to Git I would like us to agree on >> the workflow as well. >> >> -- >> Adrien >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > -- > - Mark > about.me/markrmiller
