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 1SaDQN-00059j-33 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 31 May 2012 22:00:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B9B96E0665; Thu, 31 May 2012 22:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38B7E0441 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 22:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by werj55 with SMTP id j55so1086281wer.40 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:00:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vLy88HvXiLnqX3YDb6pLbZZCMRzwW1nr467kRJJpjMw=; b=xtm76EvDyFg73v0SzXsks785oY7D3paIxkB9hJatMNUfZK1JJXIGGBOFieeOb47rXm vQfrINZusBvhIemjLtjcuMiVFqTaVYvMvaf4nINaRucO4fp56qm43y4oVlmZoj7Wx6m1 n09wkBHnTnMhRHz3j8cDMaQWNfOSE0yEjHiUNBDYaZl9mqE8UoO/Ugos4XaqUe+bIzM3 +/PZxgsy00Wvy7JAUEFu826b4Kk3r9SH4pb6xzOj5eiQ5WN8YZJw0DtSLfYvimzFY3wu HfyxTNccYlQajudPTMvyzLjfdMzcQgUH/2MD1O0JYZVT1aFF12YiiFWzzqWfppQqbTII JSYA== 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 Received: by 10.216.141.31 with SMTP id f31mr267570wej.53.1338501618688; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.60.167 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:00:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120531191804.GA24784@linux1> <20120531213303.57529c85@pomiocik.lan> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:00:18 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: williamh@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 67faf20f-9db6-4715-95fb-74cd185351a2 X-Archives-Hash: 17800ee3f04d1da3d1c39f98d772758c On 1 June 2012 07:58, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >> What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them >> have to be signed once again? >> > > The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either > good or bad based on your perspective). > > So, if 14 devs spend 3 years and 2000 commits working on something in > a branch, and I commit it to master using a rebase, then all you'll > see in the master history is that rich0 committed 20k lines of code to > master on May 31st, and that would be signed by me. > > I think that rebasing before merging is a pretty typical workflow > anyway - when you submit a patch to Linus, he doesn't really care that > you spent six months tweaking it - he just is getting a big blob of > code that either works or doesn't. =C2=A0Does all that sub-history really > matter? =C2=A0You could always push the branch to the repository if you > wanted to keep it on the side. > > Rich > I think you're conflating "rebasing" and "squashing commits". You should rebase a long commit sequence and squash pointless fixup commits, and to make the commit sequence logical and ordered, possibly divided by logical changes that one may wish to later revert. ( That way, backing out a problem is simply reversing that commit and applying the reversal patch ) You should not rebase for the purpose of squashing an entire history of changes into a single scattered commit. Rebasing is more to make the history itself linear and non-complex, as when walking backwards through history, there being 2 parallel histories that generated a merged commit can be confusing for humans, so eliminating the parallel histories is one of the primary purposes I advocate use of rebase for. Squashed commits are a handy feature of rebase, but I wouldn't want to see an entire overlay squashed into the main tree as a single squashed commit. Another bad reason for squashed commits: if you're getting rid of the Changes files, you'll have no history on anything if you just group long histories into a single commit. None. --=20 Kent perl -e=C2=A0 "print substr( \"edrgmaM=C2=A0 SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_= * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz