Jan Stolarek <[email protected]> writes: >> If there are multiple commits then a merge commit can serve to logically >> group them. > The cost of this is non-linear history. But I am still not sure what the > actual benefit is? If the > commits come one after another they are still logically grouped, with or > without a merge commit. > > I also wonder what is the preferred way of viewing history for most of the > people. I either use > `git log` or github, but rarely resort to gitk. Only the latter makes the > non-linear commits > explicitly visible. The former two just collapse everything into a linear > history and is such a > setting merge commits are a major clutter. So perhaps that's why I don't like > them. Perhaps > people who tend to use gitk are more keen on merge commits? > Indeed I make quite frequent use of gitk (even git log --graph is pretty usable).
Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
