samoa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Van Laere <oliviervanla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Dev git setup
Date Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:43:55 GMT
Hey guys,

> On Jan 27, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales <gdfm@gdfm.me> wrote:
> 
> Hi Matthieu,
> 
> One objection I have is that instead of rebasing commits on top of the
>> master branch, we should actually have a merge commit.
>> 
>> I don't think this "dirties" the history. On the contrary I think the
>> flow is clearer if you actually have a merge commit. Indeed, it groups
>> possibly multiple commits from a patch into a single unit that can
>> clearly be demarcated. To ensure this we merge using "git merge
>> --no-ff" (no fast-forward)
>> My recommendation is that the branch that is merged is named after the
>> jira. This makes it very easy to match the code change with the
>> discussion on the issue/feature.
>> 
> 
> Yes, I totally agree on this.
> I was referring to merge commits when you update the local master by doing
> git pull from the github mirror master (i.e., Merge branch 'master' of
> /foo/bar/).
> Those commits are just artifacts of the 'git pull' and don't have any
> semantic.
> The merge of a local feature branch instead should have a merge commit, I
> agree, as it has a clear semantic.

Just for me to be clear: GM, we’re talking rebasing locally but merge committing in the
repo right? Like we have been doing before? At least, that’s how I read this right now.
correct me if I’m wrong?

> 
>> In image, I'd like to use the "github workflow" as described here:
>> http://blog.endpoint.com/2014/05/git-workflows-that-work.html

Having a look at that right now, thanks for the link!

Cheers,
Ollie
Mime
View raw message