From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:35:55 +0100 Message-ID: <455C4D1B.1040002@op5.se> References: <87velgs9hx.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87psbos4pb.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <20061115230252.GH24861@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GkfXG-0000Mq-L3 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:36:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423850AbWKPLf7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:35:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031167AbWKPLf7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:35:59 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:39395 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031165AbWKPLf7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:35:59 -0500 Received: by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix, from userid 588) id C87C26BD65; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:35:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5316BCE2; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:35:55 +0100 (CET) To: "Michael K. Edwards" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 11/15/06, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Actually, with different people involved it's _much_ better to do it in >> one shot. >> >> Why? Because doing a separate "fetch to local space" + "merge from local >> space" actually loses the information on what you are merging. >> >> It's a lot more useful to have a merge message like >> >> Merge branch 'for-linus' of >> git://one.firstfloor.org/home/andi/git/linux-2.6 >> >> than one like >> >> Merge branch 'for-linus' >> >> which is what you get if you fetched it first. > > Full ACK from a platform integrator's perspective. Local merge is > great for trial runs but the history in a persistent branch should be > as self-contained and self-explanatory as possible. It shouldn't > depend on what I name local tracking branches, which are just a > convenience so that I can still do trial runs when my connectivity is > broken. > [...] > > Coming from me, this is all rather theoretical, as I haven't been > using this particular tool for the purpose long enough to have an > independent opinion. But for what it's worth, the workflow Linus > describes isn't just for the guy at the top of the pyramid. > I think it's unfortunate that git was originally written by Linus, since he so obviously is "the guy at the top of the pyramid" in many more senses than just "Linus said this and that patch was OK to commit", since git was designed to work like king Arthur's round table; "Linus is in the same circle as me, so ofcourse we help each other out". All suggestions I've been reading about tracking branches, separate-remotes and whatnot have their merit. If any of it gets implemented, I'd still like to be able to do one-shot pulls from remote repos *without* creating specific tracking branches for it. It's extremely useful to fetch other peoples topic-branches into my own "master" (or topic-branch) when I trust their changes to be good. Please consider that when you're hacking away on whatever changes to do. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se