What is our preferred gitorious workflow wrt merges and pushes?

[Aleix Pol]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Alexander Dymo <alexander.dymo at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 10.10.10 15:55:49, Alexander Dymo wrote:
>> You mean merge your branches into kdevelop/master and then push that,
>> right? So far thats what we've done, i.e. no need to specifically rebase
>> a branch against 'current' master to get a linear history.
>>
>
> Yeah, that was basically my question, do we care about linearity of our
> history?
> Looks like we don't (and git log --graph --all also suggests that we
> don't).
>
> IMHO linear history is much simpler to understand, but it does introduce
> some specifics wrt personal
> gitorious clone management (like I shown in example A1).
> For my own repos I usually try to keep history linear where possible.
>
>
> --
> KDevelop-devel mailing list
> KDevelop-devel at kdevelop.org
> https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel
>

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 :)

It's also quite ugly to see all the merge commits in git log.

Aleix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20101010/2ebde346/attachment.html>