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,