Patrick,
I'm a bit confused by some of the changes to the git commands for
release/unstable. Doesn't
git merge release/unstable
produce the ugly (and pointless) "merge remote branch" in the git
history for master? I'd rather avoid that, and I thought that
git cherry-pick release/unstable
wou
On 2010-01-17, Graham Percival wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> I'm a bit confused by some of the changes to the git commands for
> release/unstable. Doesn't
> git merge release/unstable
> produce the ugly (and pointless) "merge remote branch" in the git
> history for master? I'd rather avoid that, and I
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On 2010-01-17, Graham Percival wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused by some of the changes to the git commands for
>> release/unstable.
>
> It's a trade-off.
Ah, ok. I now agree that the "merge" is the better option.
> [1] In case of a "fast-for
