I personally like having a no fast forward merge. This is the rule of thumb I try to follow: One thought/change per commit and have the commit message be in the imperative. It makes it easier to cherry pick and understand how the commit will affect the code.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM, AJ Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry, why do we care? What's wrong with actually seeing the full history >> of the feature/bug fix? I find it useful (if the commits are actually >> sane). > > It's annoying and fragile to have multiple commits for one change, > when one may want to revert or backport it. Apart from that, it's not > an issue. > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
