Peter Simons wrote: > Hi Yury, > > > I don't say "git throws away history" but let me give you example of > > lost information. > > > commit 370df5eca753a02788bfc99707322b6f0655f1a2 > Author: Peter Simons <[email protected]> > Date: Fri Aug 13 15:13:51 2010 +0200 > > initial > > Notes: > Committed to ref: refs/heads/master The problem is that git log cannot search using notes.
git log --grep=refs/heads gives nothing > >>> Never ever rebase a published branch. > >> > >> Frankly, if I had an interest in snappy one-liners, I'd be watching > >> an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie instead of discussing software > >> engineering. > > > > man git-rebase > > /RECOVERING FROM UPSTREAM REBASE > > (second match) > > The manual pages discusses how to handle branches that prefer rebase > over merge. The mere fact that this section exists should be a strong > indication that people *do* rebase published branches. The first sentence of this section clearly states that this is a bad idea, and one of the reasons is that git-rebase just tries to apply your patches while git-merge is much more clever wrt already applied patches etc. > Anyway, this is a matter of taste, and there are pros and cons for both > approaches. The good thing about Git is that is gives you a choice. > > Take care, > Peter _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
