Hi Junio,
> If you plan to eventually ask somebody who integrates the 'master' to
> pull from you, and keep the resulting development history clean, (1)
> is _NOT_ a good reason to merge 'master' into your topics. Because
> after your topic finally is finished, when 'master' pulls it, it will
> see many "senseless" merges from itself.
the problem is. Getting a patch into mutt takes several years. At least
it took for the hcache. So what I do is keep my patches up2date on top
of there HEAD. So I prefer topic branches. And my patches throw _once_
in 4 years a conflict that was not automatically resolved. I used
bitkeeper before, now I use git.
> Such "an integration testing" is better done, instead, by forking a
> 'test' (perhaps throw-away) branch from 'master', and merging all your
> topics into it.
I dislike it myself.
> Also, if you do not publish your work-in-progress topics, you
> might want to consider rebasing on top of 'master', instead of
> 'merging'. Rebase can take the topic branch name and switch
> your current branch for you when you give it, like so:
I don't push my work other than in patches that is, so I am going to
give it a try. I always wanted to try rebase, but I never actually did
try it.
Thanks,
Thomas
-
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
