From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>,
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>,
usbuser@mailbox.org, Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Unexpected or wrong ff, no-ff and ff-only behaviour
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:47:31 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874l3nzcpo.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh87rp0gy.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:33:01 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> If we have a project like this:
>>>
>>> A topic that is slightly stale
>>> /
>>> o---F---o---o---X mainline
>>>
>>> M, A', and N should end up with identical trees:
>>>
>>>
>>> A-----------M topic that is slightly stale, merged into mainline
>>> / /
>>> o---F---o---o---X---N mainline with A' merged
>>> \ /
>>> A' mainline with A rebased on top as A'
>>>
>>> And by forcing to rebase A to A' before merging into the mainline as
>>> N, compared to advancing mainline from X to M, one major difference
>>> the workflow is making is to _lose_ the information that the topic
>>> was cooked in the context of an older mainline and did not take what
>>> happened since F until X into account....
>>
>> However, committing untested M still doesn't taste as the best possible
>> way of handling things in general. It'd be best to actually test M or N
>> before publishing.
>
> Oh, no question about it. I am not advocating (and I do not do
> personally) publishing an untested tip.
>
> But the point is, if M and N are equally well tested before
> publication, they may still have bugs resulting from subtle
> interactions between A and F..X that is not discovered during that
> testing. And N loses the information that would help diagnosing
> what went wrong, which does not happen if you published M.
I see your point.
My point is that it's still a /choice/ between more information and
history simplification. It's not one way. I dispute that keeping
reference to the original branch has enough significance to /always/
overweight opportunity for history simplification, no matter what
workflow is in use.
> About the docs easily getting misinterpreted, I think Elijah covered
> it pretty well.
Yeah, sure, the docs should better be fixed.
Anyway, bare "git --no-ff" is still there, and I can live with no safety
belt that '--ff-only' could easily have been, it's just that it's a pity
to see lost opportunities in the design.
Thanks,
-- Sergey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-15 12:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-09 9:42 Unexpected or wrong ff, no-ff and ff-only behaviour usbuser
2019-07-09 14:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-09 16:15 ` Roland Jäger
2019-07-09 16:35 ` Elijah Newren
2019-07-09 17:00 ` usbuser
2019-07-09 20:33 ` Elijah Newren
2019-07-09 20:51 ` Bryan Turner
2019-07-10 7:49 ` usbuser
2019-07-10 16:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-11 5:13 ` Sergey Organov
2019-07-11 17:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-12 13:50 ` Sergey Organov
2019-07-12 16:24 ` Elijah Newren
2019-07-15 12:08 ` Sergey Organov
2019-07-12 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-15 12:47 ` Sergey Organov [this message]
2019-07-15 16:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-07-19 11:00 ` Sergey Organov
2019-07-11 15:46 ` brian m. carlson
2019-07-10 14:36 ` Sergey Organov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874l3nzcpo.fsf@osv.gnss.ru \
--to=sorganov@gmail.com \
--cc=bturner@atlassian.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=usbuser@mailbox.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).