On May 13, 2014, at 9:01 PM, Mike Alexander <m...@umich.edu> wrote: > --On May 13, 2014 9:17:58 PM +0100 Colin Law <clan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> It’s not. I see no reason to abandon a branch just because it’s >>> merged into master, and if you really have a long-running branch >>> where you do all of your work, neither do you. It won’t avoid the >>> ladder look, either. There will just be a bunch of shortish branches >>> instead of one long one. >> >> If you want to work in that way I suggest having a look at git rebase. >> Rather than merging the branch into master this effectively moves the >> base of the branch along to the current master and makes the tree look >> much simpler. > > That's what I do. I rebase my branches onto master each time it is updated. > This seems to work well and keeps the tree much simpler.
That's the SVN way. We discussed this back in March [1] and decided that we're not going to do that anymore. If you want to revisit that you need a better argument than "that's the way I've always done it", considering that the Git community at large doesn't seem to consider it a "best practice". Regards, John Ralls [1] http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/2014-March/037289.html _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
