Hello, Am Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 06:10:37PM -0700 schrieb Felix Lechner: > That was probably a misunderstanding. I meant to suggest with some > trepidation that 'master' is merged into the feature branch, and then > the feature branch is merged back into 'master'. I thought the two > merge commits would be signed by the person performing the merges > while the "origin seal" of the accepted change is also preserved.
indeed, that is what we had been doing with the very long lived staging and core-updates branches in the past. Well, we used to repeatedly merge the master branch to core-updates, which if I remember well makes the master commits end up first in "git log". So the core-updates specific commits gradually disappear below thousands of master commits. So this is a problem. But Maxim is right about signatures, sorry for forgetting them time and again! One policy would be to *not* merge master back to the feature branch (or maybe just before merging the feature branch to master). This would work well for short-lived branches. Andreas
