Rainer, Do we really need to squash? Why not just keep it simple and merge changes as they come? Its so much better for looking at exactly how/why things are the way they are.
No rebase, no rewrites of history etc, just the simple commit and merge. -- Regards, Janmejay PS: Please blame the typos in this mail on my phone's uncivilized soft keyboard sporting it's not-so-smart-assist technology. On Nov 7, 2014 4:57 PM, "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerha...@hq.adiscon.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > based on recent discussion ([1] is a good entry point), it looks like there > is consensus that feature-branch commits shall be squashed before merging > them into master. This is a bit bad for me because in almost all cases I > like the ability to see the interim steps that lead to a feature in > question (for bisect, but also to better understand what was going on). I > have also discussed this with my peers in Adiscon and they also prefer the > way it currently is. > > To satisfy both requirements, we have now setup an internal git for Adiscon > use. Our plan is to have a parallel adiscon-master branch inside that repo, > which will contain every detail. Its master branch will mirror the public > git and contain squashed commits. > > We now have contributions from Adiscon (including me) and others. Those > from Adiscon will be done in feature branches, with detail commits and be > merged into the adiscon-master branch (so that it contains all details). > Then, I will squash the feature branch into a single commit and merge that > into master. So far, so good. > > But now we also have non-Adiscon contributions. A current example is [2]. > One question is if they must be squashed as well? Let's assume this is not > the case for whatever reason. So I merge them directly into master. Then, > to keep my actual working tree up to date, I need to cherry-pick them into > adiscon-master. This is where I am a bit hesitant, because of the manual > action. I fear that the master and adiscon-master branches may begin to > diverge, and be it through a simple mistake. > > So maybe it is better to merge pull requests into new feature branches, and > then work "as usual": merge feature branch into adiscon-master, squash > feature branch, then merge it as single commit into master. > > To sum up: I would like to have two branches, the private one with all > detail information, the public one minus those commits that are considered > distracting. What is the best way to achieve this goal? > > Feedback appreciated, > Rainer > > [1] http://lists.adiscon.net/pipermail/rsyslog/2014-November/038883.html > [2] https://github.com/rsyslog/rsyslog/pull/147 > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ > What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards > NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad > of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you > DON'T LIKE THAT. > _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
