I think mixed approach is best. We had "straight line / no merging commits" and
"squash everything into few nice commits" policy - works great for bug fixes and
PRs up to few commits. Then we realize that in case of serious feature related topic
branch it is just sad to squash and lose a history - also don't give credit to
everyone involved. Still good to cleanup the branch before doing a PR... All in all I
personally think that such policies should be loose...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kris Borchers" <kris(a)redhat.com>
To: "AeroGear Developer Mailing List" <aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 6:21:15 PM
Subject: Re: [aerogear-dev] Git Merge Policy Review
TBH, I always make sure the PR is rebased then merge and there is no merge commit and no
lost history. Sure, sometimes conflicts have to be resolved but that has to be done one
way or another.
On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Heiko W.Rupp" <hrupp(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Am 22.07.2013 um 15:15 schrieb Douglas Campos:
> squashing has them too (gigantic commits)
Much better than a huge merge / rebase with hundreds of individual
commits, perhaps even changing the same line of code a dozen
times.
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev