Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:10:15 -0700
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
To:        David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,  ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Merging GitHub Pull Requests into Subversion using git-svn
Message-ID:  <553EDDF7.6010302@mu.org>
In-Reply-To: <29BE23C6-EBFE-40FB-91FC-C0E7CBFCFD45@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <CAG=rPVdNNsS42D4UVxmokzmxu3F4Kb7wYQnwQnn23g53zzX2Bg@mail.gmail.com> <29BE23C6-EBFE-40FB-91FC-C0E7CBFCFD45@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

[[ reply private ]]

On 4/25/15 12:30 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2015, at 00:12, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> While not as smooth as clicking a merge button in GitHub,
>> this is a valid way to accept patches submitted via GitHub pull requests,
>> and integrate them in our FreeBSD Subversion repo.
> The merge button on GitHub does the wrong thing anyway (merges without fast-forward, so you end up with a tangled history), so (after the initial setup) the steps that I use for merging pull requests from GitHub projects are very similar (locally pull the branch with fast-fordward, test, push).
Not to bikeshed this, but you really almost never want a fast-forward 
commit.  The reason is that it becomes challenging to git-bisect things 
to sort out where a bad commit was.

In addition then the merge is actually one "atomic" commit.

Getting over viewing "merge commits" as "messy" was the final hurdle I 
faced going towards git-nirvana.

-Alfred




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?553EDDF7.6010302>