On May 11, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> I'm guessing we could easily flick a switch in gerrit to cause it to
> rebase instead of merge.
>
> I don't remember any debate about it, but I'm also guessing there aren't
> any hugely strong opinions in OpenStack about which is better.
>
> The thing we'd lose is the context of which parent commit a patch was
> written against. If I was to go by some of Linus's rants I'd think this
> was a cardinal sin ("NEVER destroy other people's history") yet kernel
> folks do this all the time by emailing around patches.
>
> On balance, I think I'd prefer if we did switch over to rebasing.
I would prefer a rebase as well, the merge commits make it hard to figure out
via grep exactly where a fix/feature hit master. I actually suggested this on
irc the other day. There was some concern that it would cause more merges to be
rejected because they don't rebase cleanly, although It is a little tough for
me to come up with a situation where a merge commit applies cleanly but a
rebase fails.
Vish
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
