delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h= |
message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references | |
:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh= | |
WeV6qpRPextaDB5o4et89F/4sPMDcdg2cgnxtaDGcjc=; b=X9Ho77jSTfgvDhg3 | |
meeHxtlE83+6uiOye52/WaZkofW54VZiPzy1wx23fDSO9+HDTjmSRLKcgKyEvrVP | |
iuH0rDokNlSkECA5r4vAr9j298uYE+Yvnrswk6EoiFOmQl8xQraqx5N86pSbshxC | |
EoQOGB8+2H/pBX9OaWRqnoI0oqI= | |
Message-ID: | <522086BD.6060405@jump-ing.de> |
Date: | Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:49:17 +0200 |
From: | Markus Hitter <mah AT jump-ing DOT de> |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
CC: | Peter TB Brett <peter AT peter-b DOT co DOT uk> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on mechanical CAD interaction... |
References: | <1377775142 DOT 15398 DOT 1 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap> <4F0C8F27-B063-44CF-9011-63D2B62F3FD9 AT jump-ing DOT de> <3752e7fd48358f6e97a09d34392997aa AT cam DOT ac DOT uk> <D5CCEA61-742E-4726-A779-9ADC45D580B4 AT jump-ing DOT de> <87txi7zqkg DOT fsf AT harrington DOT peter-b DOT co DOT uk> |
In-Reply-To: | <87txi7zqkg.fsf@harrington.peter-b.co.uk> |
X-Enigmail-Version: | 1.4.6 |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Am 30.08.2013 07:38, schrieb Peter TB Brett: > One of the things that (I thought) all of the gEDA projects were > pretty clear about, when we transitioned to git back in 2007, was > that the main repositories should provide reliable history. Not that I'm aware of this to be written down somewhere, there _is_ a reliable history. Where it counts: on the master branch and on the release branches. > If you want to mess around with rebasing, use a private repo. In > the main gEDA repositories, merges should be used to show how > other developments are incorporated into branches. Since git makes > merges *really easy* I don't feel like it's too much to ask. With merging you actually obfuscate the history, because you create multiple parallel histories; making well known procedures like bisecting more difficult or even impossible. If we'd create a distinct history for every tiny bugfix-branch, we'd end up in a pretty mess. This are the reasons why I hope the idea of merging goes away, once people get used to Git. Private repos are exactly the thing I try to overcome, because they pretty much prohibit collaboration. I did quite a number of rebases in the central repo and so far I'm not aware of a single conflict caused by this. Peace :-) Markus -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright � 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |