I like this idea of avoiding force pushing, but I'm not git expert to know exactly if this gives exactly the intended result = start clean and not have noise when doing bisects or git blame
this technical discussion should probably on a separate email thread, to not pollute the vote thread Any git experts to evaluate this implementation strategy? Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 5 janvier 2017, 10:12:10 CET Mark Derricutt a écrit : > On 5 Jan 2017, at 1:16, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > As this involves a --force push on the `master` branch, we want to get the > approval of the committers before continuing. > > You could branch at the point you want to reset to, then use an ours/theirs > merge strategy which creates a merge commit that ONLY takes one side. > Effectively resetting, keeping the fact we did this reversal, and doesn't > force everyone to re-clone. > > From https://git-scm.com/docs/merge-strategies: > > ours: This resolves any number of heads, but the resulting tree of the merge > is always that of the current branch head, effectively ignoring all changes > from all other branches. It is meant to be used to supersede old > development history of side branches. Note that this is different from the > -Xours option to the 'recursive' merge strategy. > > Would something like this be better than force pushing? > > -- > Mark Derricutt > http://www.theoryinpractice.net > http://www.chaliceofblood.net > http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt > http://twitter.com/talios > http://facebook.com/mderricutt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
