On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 04:03:27PM +0200, hasufell wrote: > On 07/05/2015 06:10 AM, C Bergström wrote: > >>> 5) More about linear commits and "history" - I need to double check, > >>> but I don't think rebase changes the actual commit date (I could be > >>> mistaken). > >> > >> You are mistaken, and should have double checked before you argued. > >> > >> Arguing without checking makes you look bad. > > > > How? I didn't claim to know and clearly not knowing didn't seem > > important (to me). I'm not trying to overstate anything. I'm just > > trying to passionately bring this up. I ***wish*** someone with some > > guts would actually take charge of this on the gentoo side, have a > > vote or make some executive decision which is stronger than this wimpy > > policy we have now. > > > > Most of what you brought up wasn't really useful critique, but rather > noise based on your personal frustration with git. > > This thread is not about giving lectures on how git works. We appreciate > useful comments on the git workflow. But in order to give useful > comments, you have to know and understand the project and how it works > internally. > > There will be a sh*tload of developer, feature and whatnot branches. It > is just insane to tell everyone to unconditionally do rebases > everywhere. You haven't even commented on a fraction of the resulting > problems. So please lets stop this discussion and move on.
The only thing you would have to worry about is rebasing your commits if they are already pushed. If you are working on a topic branch to make your changes, which has not been published, just rebase that branch on master, then merge it to master, and no one knows any different. I'm going to start a thread on the signatures, because I have a question about that. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
