On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 14:44 +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Using git is one thing, designing a workflow is another thing. Many > workflows exist. Some of them are not exclusively merge based (QEMU, > various subsystems of Linux), where sub-maintainers rebase and > occasionally rework patches that they queue for their next pull > request.
Ah, right. This "break your history by rebasing" workflow is so utterly wrong that it didn't actually occur to me that it might have been *mandated*. I assumed it was just a mistake by people who were not really familiar with the tools and how to use them correctly. I thought I might need to overcome some resistance from those who can't drag themselves out of the 20th century mindset of version control with purely linear history, and needed to be shown the *reasons* why we should actually do things properly. But I didn't expect there'd be a mandate to do it wrong. Do you have a reason to believe that there *is* such a mandate, rather than a simple error? If so, I'll go and apply the cluebat there in a more targeted fashion :) -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre [email protected] Intel Corporation
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
