Le 28/02/2012 06:59, Frank Lanitz a écrit :
Am 27.02.2012 08:44, schrieb Lex Trotman:
[...]
I guess if we can filter out merge commits and only show the real commit information it should be good?
(See other message with individual commit messages)
Yeah, IMO git gives us lots of un-needed merge messages, not much more we can really say other than merged master into branch, so we will have to filter them for human consumption in newsletters anyway.
It's not git. It's most likely githubs's webinterface which is causing the entries I'm not happy about. Using command line git merge -m "I just did some cool stuff" would be a bit better. Now git log e.g. looks like
I agree that the merge commits should be a bit informative on what they do, but the branch name should be a good starting point. In the two examples below the branch name make me clearly think that those "branches" (actually pull simply requests I guess) simply holds random stuff that doesn't depend on each other. I guess if Jiří made a single PR it's more because he though having one per commit was overkill rather than because these commits had strong relationship.
Maybe the "project_patches" one has some semantic, but I doubt "fixes" does.
commit 3bcd7fc40078efd601f0e9bed8efec971d505db2 Merge: 3d4e8b4 5cc8a96 Author: Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca Date: Sun Feb 26 21:04:50 2012 -0800
Merge pull request #19 from techee/fixes Fixescommit 3d4e8b41d419255ee1b0764fb60e45ea588bd800 Merge: d7d5a6d ca9dca9 Author: Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca Date: Sun Feb 26 20:50:01 2012 -0800
Merge pull request #25 from techee/project_patches Project patchesThe alternative is to always re-base before committing merged branches to master, which is probably better since we don't care how the developer got to the end point and all the commits and merges she made on the way, we just care what the commit to master does.
No. This will remove most probably of e.g. additional contributors.
Rebasing doesn't lose authorship information, it just loses original commits hierarchy. Sometimes this hierarchy is useful (like join_lines patches which makes a whole) and sometimes it is just useless stuff that makes the history less readable (like Jiří's "fixes" branch where each commit is a whole without relationship with the other).
IMO we should not record merges when there is only one single commit or when the commits are unrelated (though the latter should probably be less common) and rather rebase or cherry-pick the commits.
However, we must keep the merge when the commits are a whole thing not to lose that information (when several commits are needed to implement a single thing).
Regards, Colomban
Cheers, Frank