Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > There's an added security measure that exists /outside/ the gentoo > source control. > It also fails differently. If I find out that somebody compromised ssh in some way, doubt is cast on any commit during the

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-11 Thread Kent Fredric
On 11 May 2016 at 22:21, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > yes, and it was meant to be :) > > > my point was more that if we want signed commits, then better have > author sign it, and thus use merge Eh, I see it more a "signed commits don't really add any value to this discussion".

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-11 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 11 May 2016 02:18:03 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > On 11 May 2016 at 00:04, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > well, then I can commit crap with --author m...@gentoo.org and claim > > he made me rebase it :) > > > Well, if you're going down that line

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-10 Thread Kent Fredric
On 11 May 2016 at 00:04, Alexis Ballier wrote: > well, then I can commit crap with --author m...@gentoo.org and claim he > made me rebase it :) Well, if you're going down that line ... You don't rebase it, you just merge it, than then mrp claims obama forced his hand to

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-10 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Mon, 9 May 2016 05:07:45 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to > > preserve commit signatures when e.g. merging someone else's work. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > While you can in theory rebase merge commits with rebase --preserve, > my experience has shown me that its very difficult to get right, and > the presence of merge collisions in the "preserved" rebase risks > getting

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Kent Fredric
On 10 May 2016 at 00:23, Rich Freeman wrote: > which introduces some of the uncleanliness of non-rebased > merge commits. In general I'm a fan of rebasing merge commits. Non-rebased merge commits are worst when the merge involves a collision resolution. While you can in

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 05/08/2016 07:07 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: >>> I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve >>> commit signatures when

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-09 Thread Kristian Fiskerstrand
On 05/08/2016 07:07 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve >> commit signatures when e.g. merging someone else's work. > > > Correct, but if the person applying the

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 05/08/2016 05:53 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 08 May 2016 11:06:09 +0100 > Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: > >> I am working at the moment on debundling ejabberd. It will come with >> ~30 packages and I will do "git merge --no-ff ejabberd-debundled" >> because it will

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On 9 May 2016 at 05:03, Alexis Ballier wrote: > I was under the impression that merging is needed in order to preserve > commit signatures when e.g. merging someone else's work. Correct, but if the person applying the commits to tree is in fact reviewing them as they go,

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:52:22 +0200 Patrice Clement wrote: > After yet another discussion about git in the #gentoo-dev channel > tonight, the topic of merge commits came up for the umpteenth time. > > We all seem to agree merge commits are really bad design, add clutter > to

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sun, 8 May 2016 05:53:42 -0700 Brian Dolbec wrote: > It is these > larger commit branches that are much more difficult to "git pull > --rebase && git push --signed" successfully without some other pushes > in between causing a rejected non-fast forward push. You mean doing

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Brian Dolbec
On Sun, 08 May 2016 11:06:09 +0100 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: > I am working at the moment on debundling ejabberd. It will come with > ~30 packages and I will do "git merge --no-ff ejabberd-debundled" > because it will actually look less messy. > > Thanks, > -- Amadeusz

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 5/8/16 8:34 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 9 May 2016 at 00:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>> 1. announce to gentoo-dev@ the intention to start a branch intending to >>> merge >>> >>> 2. hack hack

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 May 2016 at 00:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> 1. announce to gentoo-dev@ the intention to start a branch intending to >> merge >> >> 2. hack hack hack >> >> 3. test the merge for any conflicts

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > No, he didn't. He stated an imaginary fact ('we all seem to agree...'), and > asked how to *enforce* that formally. That's not how you request differing > opinions. He used "seem to" to state that it was his perspective,

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On 9 May 2016 at 00:09, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > 1. announce to gentoo-dev@ the intention to start a branch intending to > merge > > 2. hack hack hack > > 3. test the merge for any conflicts etc, > > 4. announce to the list a date/time to merge > > 5. if okay, ermge I

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 5/8/16 7:25 AM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2016, 01:52:22 schrieb Patrice Clement: >> >> What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be >> worded in a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is avoided >> and we all are on the same page on

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Kent Fredric
On 8 May 2016 at 23:57, Rich Freeman wrote: > How does a merge make it any easier/harder to mess up the entire tree? > I can see how they can make the history easier/harder to read but in > the end I believe the content of the tree itself ends up being > whatever was in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 8 maja 2016 12:30:15 CEST, Dirkjan Ochtman napisał(a): >On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to >be worded in >>> a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > > * However... as the past months have shown, when using merges it is much > easier to accidentally mess up the entire tree than using rebases alone. > How does a merge make it any easier/harder to mess up the

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Andreas K. Hüttel
Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2016, 01:52:22 schrieb Patrice Clement: > > What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be > worded in a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is avoided > and we all are on the same page on this topic. > OK here's my 2ct: * I'm not

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 08/05/16 12:13, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2016, 07:09:31 schrieb Michał Górny: >>> What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be >>> worded in a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is >>> avoided and we all are on the same page on this

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Andreas K. Hüttel
Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2016, 07:09:31 schrieb Michał Górny: > > What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be > > worded in a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is > > avoided and we all are on the same page on this topic. > > You start by accepting my

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be worded >> in >> a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is avoided and we all >> are >> on the same page on this topic. > > You start by

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Amadeusz Żołnowski
I am working at the moment on debundling ejabberd. It will come with ~30 packages and I will do "git merge --no-ff ejabberd-debundled" because it will actually look less messy. Thanks, -- Amadeusz Żołnowski signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 05/08/2016 01:21 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:44:43PM +0800, cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: >> Don't be crazy - I know many developer groups which dislike merge >> commits. That nonlinear work flow is just a mess long term. > > Really? What "mess" does it cause? > > Are

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Andrew Savchenko
Hi all, On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:52:22 +0200 Patrice Clement wrote: > Hi gents > > After yet another discussion about git in the #gentoo-dev channel tonight, the > topic of merge commits came up for the umpteenth time. > > We all seem to agree merge commits are really bad design, add clutter to

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-08 Thread Greg KH
On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:44:43PM +0800, cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: > Don't be crazy - I know many developer groups which dislike merge > commits. That nonlinear work flow is just a mess long term. Really? What "mess" does it cause? Are things harder to bisect? Harder to determine what

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-07 Thread cbergstrom
: Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:52:22 +0200 Patrice Clement <monsie...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Hi gents > > After yet another discussion about git in the #gentoo-dev channel tonight, the > topic of merge commits came up for the umpteenth time

Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-07 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:52:22 +0200 Patrice Clement wrote: > Hi gents > > After yet another discussion about git in the #gentoo-dev channel tonight, the > topic of merge commits came up for the umpteenth time. > > We all seem to agree merge commits are really bad design,

[gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits

2016-05-07 Thread Patrice Clement
Hi gents After yet another discussion about git in the #gentoo-dev channel tonight, the topic of merge commits came up for the umpteenth time. We all seem to agree merge commits are really bad design, add clutter to the log graph after a while and should be banned altogether from reaching the