On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: > > The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then > > force it to the mainline. > > No, that is specifically what protected branches prevent. If "master" > is > protected, then no one, not even an admin, can re-write history and > force > push to it.
So if BitBucket supports this, the admins for the mainline SCons and SCons-Contrib repositories should mark all the branches as protected? > Personally, I find the rewriting extremely powerful for my local > development - I can re-arrange, split, and join commits in my feature > branch before it is merged into master. Very few people are > interested in > rewriting history of a published tree. I have never been a user of history rewriting as I tend to publish all my repositories all the time. Maybe my workfow and approach is wrong, and that I should keep all work private and so rebasable and squashable in both Hg and Git until the point of publishing for the pull request? -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
