On 16-05-06 08:28 PM, Kus wrote: > Daniel, I like what you said. I hinted something like that in the original > message.
Er, sorry which part - I think you mean about fast-forward only and not the ideal world where everything is always tested no matter who it's from? Regards, Daniel > > I don't like the idea of making changes to history after it is published. > Personally, I don't care about commit pollution but if the team thinks it is > important, then we should squash commits before we merge with master. History should never be rewritten in a *public* (meaning one that is supposed to be pulled from rather than a feature or staging branch that is intended for testing and rebasing and so on) branch. Ever. IMNSHO. (Unless it's something like a personal tree on github that hasn't been forked and you have no reason believe someone else has even noticed it, yet, and you have a good reason). In other branches only history not already in public branches should be rewritten else you've got an ugly problem. > In an ideal world, we'd make all commits on master and we'd have 100% > confidence that each commit is guaranteed to cause no regression. If wishes > were fishes... Heh, if that were the case we'd be the robots that took over the world because we were better than our human creators.... > Maybe require all commits in master be signed and encourage but not require > signing for others? Would that be acceptable? > Make sense to me. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
