Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Chris Friesen <chris.friesen at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140808/86c4c798/attachment.html>