Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Am 11/28/2012 0:00, schrieb Kacper Kornet:
>> When the changes are pushed upstream, and in the meantime someone else
>> updated upstream branch git advises to use git pull. This results in
>> history:
>>
>> ---A---B---C--
>> \ /
>> D---E
>
> The commit message will say:
>
> Merge branch 'master' of /that/remote
>
> * 'master' of /that/remote:
> E
> D
>
>> where B is the local commit. D, E are commits pushed by someone else
>> when the developer was working on B. However sometimes the following
>> history is preferable:
>>
>> ---A---D---C'--
>> \ /
>> '-B-'
>
> Better:
>
> ---A--D--E--C'
> \ /
> `----B
Yup, that topology is what Kacper's workflow wants.
Stepping back a bit, however, I am not sure if that is really true.
The goal of this topic seems to be to keep one integration branch
and always merge *into* that integration branch, never *from* it,
but for what purpose? Making the "log --first-parent" express the
integration branch as a linear series of progress? If so, I suspect
a project with such a policy would dictate that D and E also be on a
side branch, i.e. the history would look more like this:
D---E
/ \
--A-------X---C---
\ /
`-------B
with X being a --no-ff merge of the topic that consists of these two
commits.
> In this case, the commit message should say... what? Certainly not the
> same thing. But I do not see that you changed anything in this regard.
True. If the goal is to emulate a merge of B from a side branch
into _the_ integration branch, the summary should also emulate the
message that would be given when the remote pulled from your current
branch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html