Having to agree on mechanics certainly is a downside of Git. There is only one good rule though - no merge commmits in the history :) Ever. Do whatever you want beyond that. A clean, simple history for each branch is the only sensible use of Git I've seen.
- Mark On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:00 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > The main benefit I see is that external contributors would get their > name in the commit log. > > However on the other hand, I'm a bit annoyed that people easily > disagree on the workflow: some people merge into the maintenance > branch first and then to master, other people merge into master first > and then cherry-pick, other people prefer rebasing instead of merging, > etc. I personally don't really care but if we agree on moving to Git, > I hope we can agree on the workflow at the same time. At least today > with svn we have something simple that everybody agrees on. > > -0: I'm not against it but Subversion works well for me today. If > everybody else agrees on switching to Git I would like us to agree on > the workflow as well. > > -- > Adrien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- - Mark about.me/markrmiller
