> On Jan 28, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Well it basically forces you to move commits to master once you released > and since that is git you can rewrite the history (caricatirally you ll > just add 1 commit to master saying release-x).
GitFlow espouses that you merge your release to the master branch. It does not force you to move commits to the master, there is a difference. As for the possibility of rewriting history that's something that's inherent in git, not the GitFlow that developers here are currently using. If what I've said is accurate then I don't really see a violation here as the provenance of commits is clearly preserved so long as we do not delete the develop branch. > Le 29 janv. 2015 08:13, "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com> a écrit : > >> I am dense. :) >> >> Can you provide an explicit example? >> >>> On Jan 28, 2015, at 11:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Cause it implies history rewrite by design >>> Le 29 janv. 2015 07:51, "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com> a >> écrit : >>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >>
