> The complicated nature of the feature is the reason for it, but the point I > was trying to make was that each of the noisy aspects should be discouraged > by discouraging merging and encuraging rebasing instead in the documented > workflows.
A point where i btw. disagree. But i am not willing to go into a discussion here. So in short. If you do a merge, merge. If you do a rebase, rebase. Both have defined semantics and should be used accordingly. If a feature branch is integrated it is a merge and should be done as that. I expect a commit "Merged feature branch xyz.". > I don't want you to think I'm picking on your patches, it's just the set of > examples that I have closest to hand :). No offense taken. Mike
