<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Alexander Dymo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexander.dymo@gmail.com">alexander.dymo@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
On 10.10.10 15:55:49, Alexander Dymo wrote:<br></div><div class="im">
You mean merge your branches into kdevelop/master and then push that,<br>
right? So far thats what we've done, i.e. no need to specifically rebase<br>
a branch against 'current' master to get a linear history.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, that was basically my question, do we care about linearity of our history?<br>
Looks like we don't (and git log --graph --all also suggests that we don't).<br>
<br>
IMHO linear history is much simpler to understand, but it does introduce some specifics wrt personal<br>
gitorious clone management (like I shown in example A1).<br>
For my own repos I usually try to keep history linear where possible.<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
KDevelop-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:KDevelop-devel@kdevelop.org" target="_blank">KDevelop-devel@kdevelop.org</a><br>
<a href="https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel" target="_blank">https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I thing linear history is better but also harder to maintain personally. I think the best would be to recommend to use rebase but not force anything. rebase can lead to problems anyway, I once used it and it duplicated a ton of commits -.-. (Probably I did it wrong, but merging never goes wrong :)</div>
<div><br></div><div>It's also quite ugly to see all the merge commits in git log.</div><div><br></div><div>Aleix</div>