On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Chris Friesen <chris.frie...@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 08/06/2014 05:41 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: > >> On 06/08/14 18:12, Yuriy Taraday wrote: >>> >>> Well, as per Git author, that's how you should do with not-CVS. You have >>> cheap merges - use them instead of erasing parts of history. >>> >> >> This is just not true. >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39091.html >> >> Choice quotes from the author of Git: >> >> * 'People can (and probably should) rebase their _private_ trees' >> * 'you can go wild on the "git rebase" thing' >> * 'we use "git rebase" etc while we work on our problems.' >> * '"git rebase" is not wrong.' >> > > Also relevant: > > "...you must never pull into a branch that isn't already > in good shape." > > "Don't merge upstream code at random points." > > "keep your own history clean" And in the very same thread he says "I don't like how you always rebased patches" and "none of these rules should be absolutely black-and-white". But let's not get driven into discussion of what Linus said (or I'll have to rewatch his ages old talk in Google to get proper quotes). In no way I want to promote exposing private trees with all those intermediate changes. And my proposal is not against rebasing (although we could use -R option for git-review more often to publish what we've tested and to let reviewers see diffs between patchsets). It is for letting people keep history of their work towards giving you a crystal-clean change request series. -- Kind regards, Yuriy.
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
