From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergey Organov Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-merge: implement --ff-only-merge option. Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:42:25 +0400 Message-ID: <87a957obm6.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> References: <1412699710-3480-1-git-send-email-sorganov@gmail.com> <87fvezsk5k.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 07 22:42:34 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xbbaa-0008Bf-Ky for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 22:42:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752172AbaJGUm2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:42:28 -0400 Received: from mail.javad.com ([54.86.164.124]:44927 "EHLO mail.javad.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751264AbaJGUm2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:42:28 -0400 Received: from osv.gnss.ru (unknown [89.175.180.246]) by mail.javad.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CA1061878; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 20:42:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from osv by osv.gnss.ru with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XbbaT-0005kz-K4; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 00:42:25 +0400 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:27:30 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Sergey Organov writes: > >>> Why would it be useful to limit the history to a shape where all >>> merges are the ones that could have been fast-forwarded? >> >> Except by true merge, how else can I express with git that 'n' >> consequitive commits constitute single logical change (being originally >> some topic branch)? > > You are justifying --no-ff, aren't you? Yes, and I already said it's close. But I don't want such merge commit to contain any non-trivialities. Currently I check it manually before issuing "merge --no-ff" and was hoping for some automation. > >> Moreover, as topic branches are usually rebased before merge anyway, >> why shouldn't I have simple capability to enforce it? > > Because rebasing immediately before is considered a bad manner, > i.e. encouraging a wrong workflow? Why? What is wrong about it? Please also notice that I don't try to impose this on anybody who does consider it wrong workflow. -- Sergey.