Hi Andreas, Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes:
> 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. Yes, I think we should document as policy that there should be no merge to the feature branches unless really necessary. This will remove a lot of noise from the commit history and keep things in the feature branch focused. -- Thanks, Maxim
