I'm also in favor of linear history, option #1. FWIW I don't think lacking tight controls to prevent merges is going to be a huge deal. We already restrict who can commit, and there are lots of other rules you have to follow.
We might get an accidental merge or two every once in a while, but I expect we'll all be able to live with that? On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:53 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:19 PM Eric Christopher via cfe-dev < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:42 PM David Greene via cfe-dev >> <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> writes: >> > >> > > How about: >> > > >> > > Require a rebase, followed by git merge --no-ff >> > > >> > > This creates a linear history, but with extra null merge commits >> > > delimiting each related series of patches. >> > > >> > > I believe it is compatible with bisect. >> > > >> > > https://linuxhint.com/git_merge_noff_option/ >> > >> > We've done both and I personally prefer the strict linear history by a >> > lot. It's just much easier to understand a linear history. >> > >> >> Agreed. Let's go with option #1. >> >> > What is the practical plan to enforce the lack of merges? When we looked > into this GitHub would not support this unless also forcing every change to > go through a pull request (i.e. no pre-receive hooks on direct push to > master were possible). Did this change? Are we hoping to get support from > GitHub on this? > > We may write this rule in the developer guide, but I fear it'll be hard to > enforce in practice. > > -- > Mehdi > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev