Re: antisocial things you can do in git (but not CVS)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:46, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org> wrote:
> At 2010-07-20 14:34:20 -0400, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>> I want to make sure that I don't accidentally push the last three of
>> those to the authoritative server...
>
> By default (at least with a recent git), "git push" will push branches
> that are tracking remote branches, but new local branches have to be
> pushed explicitly to create them on the remote.

Yeha, i agree this is probably not a big problem. Plus, if we
accidentally push a branch that shouldn't have been pushed, it can
easily be removed (as long as it's noticed before anybody relies on
it). To the suitable embarrassment of the committer who made the
incorrect push, which has a tendency to teach them not to do it next
time :-)

>> 3. Merge commits.  I believe that we have consensus that commits
>> should always be done as a "squash", so that the history of all of
>> our branches is linear.
>
> I admit I haven't been paying as much attention as I should, but I did
> not know there was such a consensus. If anyone could explain the
> rationale, I would be grateful.

We are not changing the workflow, just the tool.

We may consider changing the workflow sometime in the future (but
don't bet on it), but we're definitely not changing both at the same
time.

This has been discussed many times before, both here on list and in
person on at least two instances of the pgcon developer meeting. This
is not the time to re-open that discussion.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/