[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Patch mgmt workflow proposal



martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> writes:

> also sprach Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> [2011.08.01.1914 +0200]:
> > So as a variation of the described workflow you can establish
> > a special branch that holds references to all feature branch
> > commits in its history.
>
> This comes about ¾ of the way to the history pollution done by TopGit.

I consider it very useful information, when needed. It's only pollution
if you let it be so.

> Not only would users potentially get confused by this additional
> branch (which is an implementation detail), it would also get in the
> way in gitk output (cf. pristine-tar) and annoy even the unconfused.

That's an argument not for hobbling a useful branching-and-merging
workflow, but for improving the output of those programs. Advocate with
Git (and other VCSen) to hide merged revisions by default, the way
Bazaar does.

-- 
 \      “Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or |
  `\     50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's |
_o__)               hard to avoid second-hand smoke.” —Michael Tiemann |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpEDedF132ar.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: