On 11/14/05, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
quoted text
> All the woes just to get rid of the merge commits. What's wrong on merge
> commits? If they irritate you so much, cg-log -M. ;-)

Well, if you have a team of 5 working closely, doing commit/update
several times a day, soon the following things happen:

 - everyone has sightly different histories, even if they all have the same tree
 - in the repo, there are 'update' merges galore.
 - as soon as you _actually_ have branches, it's really hard to
distinguish branch merges from 'same branch update before commit'
merges.

by replacing the daily/hourly intra-team, self-branch `cg-update` with
`cg-fetch && git-rebase` our history makes much more sense _and_
looking at gitk I can see clearly again the interesting merges (ie:
merges with other branches).

In practice, it's exactly what happens with git's history -- the
merges are actually from rebased patches, that's why the history is
"readable".

does that make sense?

cheers,


martin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html