[Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits
bbouters at redhat.com
Tue Mar 21 18:49:54 UTC 2017
I plan to turn this thread into a formal RFC once that process has been
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Sean Myers <sean.myers at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
> > where exactly change had been applied?
> > I agree with Mike and think that merging forward is so super simple, i
> > 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'.
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev