From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleh Krehel Subject: Re: Merge branch 'maint' Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:48:45 +0200 Message-ID: <87lhceo8he.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87twr37il4.fsf@gmail.com> <87y4gfpkjy.fsf@kyleam.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40314) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZzOl-0004sV-DJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:48:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZzOg-0002eb-ES for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:48:11 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]:38442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZzOg-0002eP-8c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:48:06 -0400 Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so18051219wic.1 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 03:48:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87y4gfpkjy.fsf@kyleam.com> (Kyle Meyer's message of "Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:30:25 -0400") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Kyle Meyer Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Kyle Meyer writes: > Hello, > > Oleh Krehel writes: > >> Hi all, >> >> Was the issue of abundant "Merge branch 'maint'" commit messages >> discussed before? I couldn't find a reference... >> >> It's not a big deal, really, but I personally prefer to have linear >> history with commits that actually do stuff. And it should be easy to >> switch to this style: just use the "rebase" instead of the "merge" >> command. >> >> Anyway, it's a small thing, and if Nicolas or Bastien strongly like the >> merge method I won't bring it up again. But if they don't care either >> way, I think it's better to start rebasing. > > While I'm all for rebasing unpushed commits, short-lived feature > branches, and throw-away integration branches, your suggestion would > frequently rewrite the history of a long-lived public branch. Why not just cherry-pick the commits from master onto maint, or the other way around? That would result in no merge commits. I think it should be possible to rebase two branches without having to rewrite the public history. As far as I understood, maint is a subset of master, i.e. all commits that are in maint are in master as well. Is that correct? Oleh