git workflow draft

[Michael Jansen]

> 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.

A point where i btw. disagree. But i am not willing to go into a discussion 
here. So in short. If you do a merge, merge. If you do a rebase, rebase. Both 
have defined semantics and should be used accordingly.

If a feature branch is integrated it is a merge and should be done as that. I 
expect a commit "Merged feature branch xyz.".

> 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 :).

No offense taken. 

Mike