I plan to turn this thread into a formal RFC once that process has been ratified.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Sean Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/06/2017 12:09 PM, Ina Panova wrote: > > Seems like we are trying to choose/figure out what's more important - > > linear commit history which is readable or confidence and ability to > track > > where exactly change had been applied? > > > > I agree with Mike and think that merging forward is so super simple, i > must > > admit i had issues to understand this strategy from the beginning but > now i > > could do that even with closed eyes. > > The problem, as has become very clear in the past few days, is that merging > forward does not give us the confidence (or ability) to track where exactly > a change has been applied. All it tells us is what commit hashes exist on a > branch, which is not the same thing. You can record a commit hash as merged > without bringing its changes forward, which is a necessary step in fixing > merge-forward mistakes. The best way to see if a specific change exists on > a given branch, whether we're cherry-picking or we're merging forward, as I > understand it, is to use 'git cherry'. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
