[Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits

Brian Bouterse 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
> 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'.
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170321/fcf3e51c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list