On Fri, 6 May 2016, Kus wrote:
Daniel, I like what you said. I hinted something like that in the original
message.
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.
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...
Maybe require all commits in master be signed and encourage but not require
signing for others? Would that be acceptable?
how do you define 'a commit in master'? when you pull a git tree, you are
pulling a lot of commits, (and making one merge commit)
so are you saying that all those commits must be signed? if so you are saying
that everyone must sign commits.
Or are you saying that the merge commits must be signed and the other commits
don't need to be signed?
what is it you are trying to prove with the signature?
Please do not go the route of swashing all patchsets into a single commit. That
throws away a LOT of history and makes it much harder to figure out what change
broke things.
It's good for someone creating a patchset to review the patches, re-ordering
and/or squashing and/or splitting the patches as appropriate to produce a clean
history (ideally, everything should work after every individual patch), but you
can't require that.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
