On 31 January 2016 at 19:24, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Sonntag, den 31.01.2016, 13:10 -0500 schrieb Geoffrey Mainland: > > My usual git workflow is to work on a feature branch, get a nice > > clean set of patches, each of which implements a discrete bit of > > functionality, rebase onto master, and then merge with an empty > > merge commit, i..e, *not* fast-forward. > > if you want to go through the trouble, you are certainly welcome to do > so. The fact that phab squashes commits into one is more an artifact > of its VCS-agnosticity rather than a deliberate decision by us. > > When I want a git history (or just my nice git commit messages) > preserved, I create a phab differetian revision as usual, but then > manually amend the git commit to contain the line Differential > Revision: https://phabricator.haskell.org/Dnnnn and push, once the DR > has been accepted, by normal git means. I just have to remember to > indicate in the DR (e.g. in the summary) that I want to do it this > way.
FWIW, I agree with Geoffrey, and in addition to the benefits he listed, I appreciate that committing "kernel.org-style" improves bisect'ability. I used to dislike merge commits myself until I realized the usefulness of finding merge points in the history. So, I don't understand how collapsing everything into one big commit can make any sense. Is it really impossible to tell phabricator (or arcanist) to preserve a carefully prepared patch set, and if so, why does it insist on that? _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
