Jeremy Morton wrote:
> 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? :-)
I don't seem to what? I'm the one arguing for change, and I sent the patches to
fix this default behavior.
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