git workflow draft

[Stephen Kelly]

Michael Jansen wrote:

> 
>> mjansen might just have been following a 'never rebase public branches'
>> philosphy, but that really doesn't work for me. It was a complicated
>> feature requiring lots of refactoring.
> 
> Hehe ... as the one doing the code i would say it was more like ....
> 
> mjansen stumbled through unchartered territory with a blindfold and no
> clear plan.
> 
> Or in other words.  I knew what i wanted but not the means to do it. So i
> did try and error while understanding your code. There is no way i could
> have created a clean history for that branch unless doing it twice. Which
> more or less happened with you beeing the one doing it twice.

Yes, it's complicated code and a very complicated feature that I would never 
have figured out. It didn't have to be done twice though. It was written 
once and committed twice really.

The complicated nature of the feature is the reason for it, but the point I 
was trying to make was that each of the noisy aspects should be discouraged 
by discouraging merging and encuraging rebasing instead in the documented 
workflows.

I don't want you to think I'm picking on your patches, it's just the set of 
examples that I have closest to hand :).

Thanks,

Steve.