This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi! On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:21:08 +0000 (UTC), "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > But AFAICT that commit is a no-op merge. > > So there's nothing that really needs to be done. > > And if people want to avoid merge commits, I suggest using "git pull > --rebase" instead of just "git pull" when merging in other people's > changes to a tree with local commits. True about the mechanism, but do we have/want to set a policy there? I for one quite like seeing which was the baseline a patch was developed and tested on, which is obvious in the merge-master-before-push scenario, but that information is lost if the patch is rebased onto master before pushing (and possibly not even re-tested on that new baseline). (Of course, ideally, after merging the master, a patch should then be re-tested before pushing.) At this point, I think everyone has gotten familiar enough with Git's distributed many-branches concept, and we need not follow CVS' have-to-update-before-being-able-to-commit principle anymore. GrÃÃe, Thomas
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |