couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Git workflow
Date Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:01:17 GMT
Another point in favour of merge commits (non-ff) is that the branch
merged to leaps forward atomically. It might not be appropriate to see
the intermediate tree for a feature that consists of multiple commits.


On 25 April 2013 22:59, Robert Newson <> wrote:
> "I'm not sure where this notion that bisecting with merge
> commits is harder comes from."
> From personal experience, but I concede this might point to my
> deficiency and not git's.
> On 25 April 2013 22:57, Randall Leeds <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Robert Newson <> wrote:
>>> If we enhance the #1 proposal to include a final rebase against master
>>> before merge, then master will be truly linear. That will make for
>>> easier reading, easier backporting and will enable bisecting when
>>> spelunking for regressions, etc.
>> I disagree.
>> git-bisect is smart enough to remove whole merges before diving into
>> their constituent commits, IIRC, which reduces the possibility of
>> false negatives if there were intermediate commits that had failing
>> tests on the feature branch but the ultimate merge was clean and
>> green. I'm not sure where this notion that bisecting with merge
>> commits is harder comes from.
>> Similarly, backporting a topic branch should look something like:
>>> git checkout -b topic-branch-1.3.x-backport topic-branch
>>> git rebase --onto 1.3.x master
>> This would produce a branch (topic-branch-1.3.x-backport) which
>> contains all the commits on topic-branch since it diverged from
>> master, rebased onto 1.3.x.
>> Reading history with merge commits can also be easier than the
>> alternative FF-only history since there is a --merges option to
>> git-log. This feature can, for instance, show you time line of topic
>> introduction without the clutter of the individual commits that were
>> necessary to produce them.
>> If I am going to argue one way or another I would actually suggest
>> that feature or topic branches always merge with --no-ff.

View raw message