incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Git workflow
Date Fri, 24 May 2013 16:32:23 GMT
Activity from elsewhere:

http://markmail.org/message/5pxv3ni6qvc2k2jo

http://markmail.org/message/czkylvo2wvbrrikj

http://markmail.org/message/2ybvoo2yjwxmfwze

http://markmail.org/message/ohjwjh6ri72yuagh

http://markmail.org/message/v767rozacnwowlpg

http://markmail.org/message/ftbd5qbv33iq7uxu

Hopefully we can continue the discussion here and resolve this soon. I'm
hoping the people with the strongest opinions here (lookin at you Bob,
Randal, and Dirkjan) feel empowered to JFDI. If you don't, ... JFDI. ;)


On 1 May 2013 09:15, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com>
> wrote:
> > On 30 April 2013 15:57, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> >> snip
> >
> > Of note against rebasing merges, is this:
> >
> http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2013/04/30/please-stay-away-from-rebase
> >
> > TL;DR rebase gives a linear history but the timestamps by default
> > remain the originals. i.e. your history now time travels as you follow
> > the pseudo linear history.
> >
> Well timestamp chronology isn't so important since git keep the
> commits in the order of the arriving. Imo removing the power of rebase
> is like using svn but with better merging possibilities.
>
> Having the possibility to merge some commits from branches in one
> atomic commit is really good if you want to make sure that all commits
> pass the tests, while failures can be accepted in branches. Indeed in
> branches you can use commit as  a way to show WIP, which should be
> unacceptable in master or productions branches.
>
> - benoit
>



-- 
NS

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message