"Avery Pennarun" <apenwarr@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > svn avoids these excess merges by default, albeit because it puts your > working copy at risk every time you do "svn update". By default? As if it has other mode of operation. Of course if you do not allow any commits in between to make the history truly forked, you won't see merge commits. It is like saying that you like your broken keyboard whose SHIFT key does not work because you think capital letters look ugly and your keyboard protects you from typing them by accident. Is that an improvement? I won't waste my time further on the apples and rotten oranges comparison, but you should perhaps listen to Linus's talk where he talks about why it sucks that SVN/CVS _encourage_ you to keep your local changes uncommitted for several weeks. >> You can skip merges with "git log --no-merges", just in case you didn't >> know. > > Perhaps this is mostly a user education or documentation issue. I > know about --no-merges, but it's unclear that this is really a safe > thing to use, particularly if some of your merges have conflicts. > Leaving them out leaves out an important part of history. Do you use > this option yourself? Very rarely. When I run "git shortlog" for summary, it often is handy, but otherwise no. -- 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
