On 28/04/2014 10:01, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Jeremy Morton wrote:
On 27/04/2014 20:33, Johan Herland wrote:
The problem is not really "less tidy commit trees" - by which I gather
you mean history graphs that are non-linear. IMHO, the history graph
should reflect parallel/branched development when that is useful.
Blindly rebasing everything into a single line is IMHO just as bad as
doing all your work directly on master and blindly running "git pull"
between each of your own commits (which results in a lot of useless
merges). The merge commits themselves are not the problem. Merge
commits are a tool, and when used properly (to introduce topics to the
master branch like described above) they are a good tool. When abused
(like blindly running "git pull" and accepting useless "merge
bubbles") they create more problems than they solve.


Sounds like the default behaviour of "git pull" might not be ideal if it
easily causes these problems.

It's not idea. Virtually everyone agrees with that, even Linus Torvalds, and we
have the patches to fix it, but it's not going to change.

The Git project doesn't welcome change.

Well, you sure don't seem to. Why are there so many "no-can-do" people on this list? :-)

--
Best regards,
Jeremy Morton (Jez)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to