Am 27.02.2012 08:44, schrieb Lex Trotman: > [...] >> >> I guess if we can filter out merge commits and only show the real commit >> information it should be good? >> >> (See other message with individual commit messages) > > Yeah, IMO git gives us lots of un-needed merge messages, not much more > we can really say other than merged master into branch, so we will > have to filter them for human consumption in newsletters anyway.
It's not git. It's most likely githubs's webinterface which is causing
the entries I'm not happy about. Using command line git merge -m "I just
did some cool stuff" would be a bit better. Now git log e.g. looks like
commit 3bcd7fc40078efd601f0e9bed8efec971d505db2
Merge: 3d4e8b4 5cc8a96
Author: Matthew Brush <mbr...@codebrainz.ca>
Date: Sun Feb 26 21:04:50 2012 -0800
Merge pull request #19 from techee/fixes
Fixes
commit 3d4e8b41d419255ee1b0764fb60e45ea588bd800
Merge: d7d5a6d ca9dca9
Author: Matthew Brush <mbr...@codebrainz.ca>
Date: Sun Feb 26 20:50:01 2012 -0800
Merge pull request #25 from techee/project_patches
Project patches
> The alternative is to always re-base before committing merged branches
> to master, which is probably better since we don't care how the
> developer got to the end point and all the commits and merges she made
> on the way, we just care what the commit to master does.
No. This will remove most probably of e.g. additional contributors.
Cheers,
Frank
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
