I think it's worth asking about what problems we are trying to solve. I
don't think that preserving signed commits is that useful unless we are
trying to maximize our level of security by requiring all commits to be
signed (and I question if we'd actually want or need this). If we do want
to
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:48 PM Brian Bouterse wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matthias Dellweg
> wrote:
>
>> I know, this is late to the game, but i didn't have a better argument
>> than i didn't like. Now i know why i prefer merge commits:
>> Having proper merge commits:
>> -
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 8:14 AM Matthias Dellweg
wrote:
> I know, this is late to the game, but i didn't have a better argument than
> i didn't like. Now i know why i prefer merge commits:
> Having proper merge commits:
> - keeps the information when a change was made and when it was merged
>
This is all interesting, but as one of the goals of the cli is to not be
dependent on specific versions of pulpcore/plugins, there should be no need
to release a new version _with_ them.
Surely it would be good to release subcommands for new features shortly
after they go GA, but there should be
Regards,
Ina Panova
Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
"Do not go where the path may lead,
go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:15 PM Brian Bouterse wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 3:31 PM Robin Chan wrote:
>
>>
>> Robin
I know, this is late to the game, but i didn't have a better argument than
i didn't like. Now i know why i prefer merge commits:
Having proper merge commits:
- keeps the information when a change was made and when it was merged
(quba42 mentioned this before)
- keeps signatures on commits intakt (I
