Hi, >> Now might be a good time to discuss how we'd like the history to look >> in a year from now. If we follow the above approach, I guess we may >> end up with one merge message for each small little bug-fix? (Unless >> --rebase is used) How do we ensure that "fast-forward" merges occur >> whenever possible? > > The only solution that I know of is to have a pull-like workflow, but > I thought this was rejected as too complicated ?
Am I the only person to find it strange that we have an active and skilled development community, many of whom have been using git routinely for a long time, and we none of us seem to know what the agreed workflow is? I risk yet another deafening silence in asking - is there anyone who thinks that the current state of play is good? If the answer is no - then isn't there anyone who will step up to the plate and suggest something? I will certainly do it if given any sign that that is welcome. See y'all, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
