Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > You are saying: > > - This is a sensible policy > > - It would improve our workflow
We made it a year and a half without botching this. If we're merging branches without checking what we're merging, we've got way bigger problems. And Git is not going to do code review on its own. > but > > - Automating it is too hard, so people should do it by hand We're really talking about code review. If you review what you are merging, then there is no "by hand". The particular policy no-no is just one of many incorrect merges that one could do. > You come to this conclusion because > > - It is hard to do in Git, as currently conceived > > It is not a stretch to call this a cop out. I would seriously question the > legitimacy of a model > which cannot do this very simple and useful thing. Define the thing you want in a precise and generic way. Make a concrete proposal and we can talk about whether that is better than what we have now. Throwing away something good so that we can avoid repeating a mistake is unproductive reactionary policy. I do not think this mistake is that hard to avoid and I think that preventing it via technical means is unlikely to be an overall improvement.
pgpCMPq2DvGbT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
