On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <[email protected]> writes: > >> Ok, if this can be documented and made as simple as possible? A > >> tool to do it? If it requires remember several arcane git commands > >> to do and remember the numbers of 5 merges you made, then forget > >> it. > > > > Perhaps Jed will reply with a simpler 'single' command to do the > > revert all the merges from the feature branch - and an easy way to > > verify. > > Nope, but I don't recommend these reverts because it makes it more > confusing to follow 'next' and to find which commit introduced a change > (when debugging something in 'next'). My preference is that in normal > workflow, you don't rebase/modify that which has been merged to 'next'. > If it's catastrophically wrong, then revert on 'next' and start over, > but if it just needs a tweak, do that on top of your branch.
I think is ok to be a bit more messy in next. Sure there is a tradeoff - but you get better debugging in master :) We shouldn't be doing rebase for every feature branch (thats merged to next) - but for the very few that might need it - we should ok to do it. And it should be done only when the feature is deemed *complete* [say 1-2 weeks of cooking in next - without a need for updates] Satish
