Hello Rutherther, Am Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 10:05:37PM +0100 schrieb Rutherther: > Thanks! I am still thinking about the best way to continue forward and > am unsure. What are your thoughts on merges/rebases to keep next-master > updated with updates from master?
I am not sure to have an objective and well argumented opinion. Personally I find git merges confusing; given that "git log" creates a linear representation, I find it difficult to picture the non-linear history in the terminal (at some point in time, a colleague showed me an additional graphical tool to picture the two parallel lines, but I forgot what it was). But personal preferences do not make for a good basis of a general rule. On the other hand, so far I have not understood the advantage of a merge above rebasing either. Well, in our context, there is the question of people reconfiguring on next-master and then needing to permit downgrades (or sidegrades?). I do not think this is a big problem. I would advise people to stay on master, and to switch to next-master at their own risk if they know what they do. And given that our current policy is to rebase, I would continue for the time being and also from time to time rebase next-master on master. If we want to change this, it could be done (in more generality) by a GCD. But again, I do not see why we would want to do this... Andreas
