On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:03:29PM +0700, C Bergström wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > C Bergström posted on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 01:17:41 +0700 as excerpted: > > > >> I super don't like "merge" workflows. > >> 1) "merge commits" are confusing at best and normal tools don't display > >> and work with them as you'd always expect > > > > git log --graph, as others have mentioned. > > we are not talking about the same thing. > > I want to see the "diff" - not the graph. > > svn diff -r 1234 > git show <hash> > > show me the "merge" commit in diff format
So this isn't a good comparison. You are asking for a merge commit in git and a normal commit in svn. Svn can branch but it is so complicated that no one ever does it. If you were similarly to never ever make branches in git its not a huge deal. (There are not *that* many pushes to the tree, if you look at #gentoo-commits there is plenty of time between commits.) While I personally rebase almost all of my stuff, merges are important when taking contributions. A good example would be the main linux kernel tree, if Linus were to merge everything it would be incredibly difficult to figure anything out. -- Jason
