On Thursday, February 17, 2011 00:19:56 Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> What specifically do you mean by "creating useful history" though? > >> i.e. > >> what should be done additionally in a rebase workflow to get the > >> useful > >> history you refer to? > > > > Do this: > cd /tmp > git clone git://gitorious.org/grantlee/grantlee.git > cd grantlee > git remote add mjansen git://gitorious.org/~mjansen/grantlee/mjansen- > grantlee.git > git fetch mjansen > gitk --all > > Now look at the commits in the experimental branch from mjansen (before > v0.1.5). > See that some commits do lots of things at the same time/in the same commit > and should be split. > > There's also commits for s/todo/TODO/, fixing copyrights etc. Having those > in separate commits is not 'useful historical data'.
That's a great example, although I will point out that it is possible to have fixed many of those in either workflow, by using git-rebase before pushing fixup commits, commits that should be split, etc. Having a rebase merge strategy does give you an additional chance to fix commits since you're rewriting commits anyways, although that brings back the email issue. Of course as long as the number of commits involved is fairly small it sounds like either way should work fine (and there's still the argument that people are just going to do whatever anyways...), so it's probably worth documenting how either workflow should proceed, and where it could be used, or should not be used. Regards, - Michael Pyne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
