[Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits

Sean Myers sean.myers at redhat.com
Tue Mar 21 15:13:30 UTC 2017

On 02/06/2017 12:09 PM, Ina Panova wrote:
> Seems like we are trying to choose/figure out what's more important -
> linear commit history which is readable or confidence and ability to track
> where exactly change had been applied?
> I agree with Mike and think that merging forward is so super simple, i must
> admit i had issues to understand this strategy from the beginning but now i
> could do that even with closed eyes.

The problem, as has become very clear in the past few days, is that merging
forward does not give us the confidence (or ability) to track where exactly
a change has been applied. All it tells us is what commit hashes exist on a
branch, which is not the same thing. You can record a commit hash as merged
without bringing its changes forward, which is a necessary step in fixing
merge-forward mistakes. The best way to see if a specific change exists on
a given branch, whether we're cherry-picking or we're merging forward, as I
understand it, is to use 'git cherry'.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 866 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170321/618e5d6e/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list