Changes to branch management

[Jan Kundrát]

On Thursday, 25 December 2014 08:21:05 CEST, Ben Cooksley wrote:
> In essence, yes - those are the two possible options we have.
> Force pushing will *still* be prohibited under this proposal as it
> stands (and would be a CoC violation if done).

Hi Ben,
this is a very strong statement. I'm believe that you have a good reason 
for making it, but I do not understand what that reason is. I think that 
one of the reasons you strongly dislike force pushes are limitations of the 
current hook setup. That's a relevant technical point, but IMHO it isn't 
something which would qualify a force push to be a CoC violation. The CoC 
is a generic document which doesn't even talk about the concept of SCM. 
Maybe I have my knee-jerk reaction when people call something they consider 
an evil thing a "CoC violation", but I just about totally disagree when I 
read such a statement. I would hate to see this subthread getting derailed 
into a lnguage lawyering of what's in the CoC and what isn't there, so I'll 
stop here by saying that I don't agree with that particular conclusion.

The reason why I think that a force push sometimes makes sense is 
experience with Trojita. There's a couple of long-forgotten WIP branches 
which only differ by some of them being already squashed into more 
manageable form or rebased on a more recent master. The current state leads 
to branches like "foo", "foo-2" etc (I think we're at foo-5 with Trojita 
now). What alternative to force pushes would you recommend? Should we stick 
with the foo-number scheme? Why is that good?

With kind regards,
Jan

-- 
Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/