Alan, the gitflow way is basically review then commit. Because the 'Release Manager' (of whom we lack...) needs to review and choose (cherry-pick) EACH AND EVERY SINGLE COMMIT. And even worse - by deleting the 'temp' branch afterwards we also loose all the other work later.
And once again: We must not delete anything from our repos! We must not squash commits! We must not loose any history! We must guarantee a verifyable code provenance! Those are no 'should' those are MUST! LieGrue, strub > On Thursday, 29 January 2015, 7:51, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> > wrote: > > >> On Jan 28, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> well it is by design opposed to apache way since if it is used it is >> to have the ability to change commit history - if not it is really >> useless. > > I’m sure that I’m being dense but how is this form of branch management not > the > apache way? > > > Regards, > Alan >
