I use merge actually. Its just fine. That is my workflow, get over it. Its not something we vote about. Its just like the editor I choose to use.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Ramkumar R. Aiyengar <andyetitmo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
