On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:16:33PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote: > I beg to differ. Could you elaborate on this? IMHO, using rebase is the > cleanest way I've seen so far to maintain patches and their history, in > the sense that upstream could just import directly these patches (with > their history) into their repos. It is the best way to have a "clean" patch, of course, as you can mangle the commit history to have only the right commits. However it is bad for people who are following a git repository. To our ends, I would like to never see rebases in the published branches (master, topic branches, ...). If we want to have a (set of) scratch branch to play with and to rebase freely that is fine, but they should be advertised as such. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the XML stuff is so ... simplistic -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature