In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > can do, even though I believe it is by far not the best tool to do so.
The definition of "the best tool" depends on many things, including previous experience and personal preferences. > The problem is that I would have to use one local branch per feature > (i.e. lots of local branches that need to be kept in sync), and even > then any incremental changes/fixes to one particular feature are visible > in the commitlog (and thus result in changelog pollution). Having many local branches is no problem with git. Git provides excellent help to rebase such branches, and using "--interactive" gives you a lot of options to edit the history. > So is this really the preferred workflow? How are others dealing with > this? How to avoid commitlog pollution? I started using "git-rebase -i", and so far it seems to work fine for me. But I'm definitely not an expert. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contrary to popular belief, thinking does not cause brain damage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
