On 01/09/2012 11:39 AM, Olemis Lang wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Remy Blank<[email protected]> wrote:
Christian Boos wrote:
These branches are best kept linear, for easier integration
upstream. If after a while, the changes don't apply anymore
on latest code from upstream, then you should rather rebase
the changes instead of merging with upstream, as it's more
difficult to examine and reintegrate a branch if it contains
merge changesets.
I still don't understand why people keep wanting to rebase instead of
merge. I have been working with Mercurial for years now, and I still
haven't had a valid use case for rebasing. The same applies to MQ, for
that matter.
If I clone a repo with a common branch and am doing some development on
it when someone else updates that branch in the central/shared repo, my
changes look cleaner when checked in if I rebase locally rather than
merge. To merge, I have to push *my* branch to the central/shared repo.
We find that when we do that, we end up with a dizzying number of
branches. It is admittedly a site/personal preference.
--
Christopher Nelson, Software Engineering Manager
SIXNET - Solutions for Your Industrial Networking Challenges
331 Ushers Road, Ballston Lake, NY 12019
Tel: +1.518.877.5173, Fax: +1.518.877.8346 www.sixnet.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac
Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en.
