On 03-11-2011 11:33, Kagamin wrote:
Jesse Phillips Wrote:
You are both correct, but due to git's high level once you do a merge you don't
see the history as multiple branches. A merge commit will reference both branch
data as its parent. The branch name can then be removed and its history remain
part of the master branch.
Also if you merge in a branch that is a direct descendant the merge is a
"Fast-Forward" which just means make master point to ____ commit. This makes it
common to always commit non-master branch, and still a merge commit isn't required.
Do I understand it right, that "sacred history problem" is a problem only for
git due to how it implements merges?
Also if you can always fast forward the main branch, does it mean the project
is small, i.e. ~1 man is working on it?
No, Git is probably the DVCS with *least* sacred history (read: nothing
is sacred).
- Alex
