From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SaB7B-0007ut-AN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:32:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AC0EEE08AC; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEB5E088D for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:31:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-253-135-71.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.135.71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FFC71B4002; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:33:03 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: williamh@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Message-ID: <20120531213303.57529c85@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120531191804.GA24784@linux1> References: <20120531191804.GA24784@linux1> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/y275SuZd+oletLk/H2g=Jce"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: df97df4b-be7f-498f-a928-59ecbac7b609 X-Archives-Hash: 58ef0fbfd9b342e7d116f3ff563b43d9 --Sig_/y275SuZd+oletLk/H2g=Jce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson > > wrote: > > > 1. > > > Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would > > > disallow merge commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. > > > However, it turns out that if the repo ends up being pushed to > > > different places with slightly different histories, merges are > > > absolutely going to be required to prevent somebody from having > > > to rebase at least one of their sets of commits that are already > > > pushed. > >=20 > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a > > git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only > > committing to master on the gentoo official repository, and any > > on-the-side work on places like github/etc stays in branches? > > Those repositories would just keep getting fed commits on master > > from the official repository. >=20 > Iagree with this; I think we should ban merge commits on master. That > would force everyone to rebase their work on current master before > they commit to master which would make the history clean. What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them have to be signed once again? --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/y275SuZd+oletLk/H2g=Jce Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAk/Hx3AACgkQfXuS5UK5QB1gKQP5Af1sHss8vcbuoEw2fom6/3Fb 2LouQpnXVinfEzTh8Ocr9eGz4glF1W9ZZOKTr93Lp5us7JLUlbH57T5jDQ3OSKzq sIH6o7w7/p2Albg3XXw5Oe7pDtggatvwT84cNmtWqNFNILBhD9SL3anhij3CIcc3 OAdPpp/RWGdoWTaBwHg= =MUru -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/y275SuZd+oletLk/H2g=Jce--