-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26k
[MRG] DOC change rebase to merge policy #8753
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks fine to me, but that's not sure surprising
doc/developers/contributing.rst
Outdated
to merge ``master`` into your branch with the explicit ``--no-ff`` flag. The | ||
command will be:: | ||
|
||
$ git merge --no-ff master |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do you require the --no-ff flag ?
If there is a conflict, there will be no fast forward possible. Actually, even if there is no commit but some change on both branch, a fast forward will not be possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
my mistake
* DOC change rebase to merge policy * FIX remove no-ff flag
* DOC change rebase to merge policy * FIX remove no-ff flag
* DOC change rebase to merge policy * FIX remove no-ff flag
* DOC change rebase to merge policy * FIX remove no-ff flag
* DOC change rebase to merge policy * FIX remove no-ff flag
* DOC change rebase to merge policy * FIX remove no-ff flag
* DOC change rebase to merge policy * FIX remove no-ff flag
Reference Issue
Follow a discussion in #8568
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
The current policies to solve conflicts between
master
and a development branch is based ongit rebase
. Following the discussion in #8568 , @jnothman proposes to use agit merge
policy instead.Any other comments?
I personally like the following discussion regarding the two policies.