From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8401 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2014 08:07:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8392 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jan 2014 08:07:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:07:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5FC116398; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DVBkgP4LUtN8; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:07:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C911B116354; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:07:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 19135E0EF0; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:07:03 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:07:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Ricard Wanderlof , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches? Message-ID: <20140124080703.GL4762@adacore.com> References: <20140122051133.GB4762@adacore.com> <83r480f2r2.fsf@gnu.org> <20140122161520.GF4762@adacore.com> <83bnz4ezst.fsf@gnu.org> <83wqhqekpp.fsf@gnu.org> <83ha8tersb.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ha8tersb.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00917.txt.bz2 > > I'm not trying to advocate one or the other, rather just trying to > > understand the reasoning behind the decision. > > So am I. And I still don't understand that reasoning. > > Let me turn the table and ask: are there any objections to removing > this restriction on master, and leaving it only on the branch? If > there are no objections, can we please remove the restriction? On a personal level, it does not really matter all that much to me, one way or the other, but from the project's perspective and its variety of contributors, I would like to object to allowing merge commits on master. I think we cannot expect all our contributors to know git well, and for those who don't have a good command of that tool, branch merges are more difficult to understand than simple commits. Rejecting merges makes sure that the history remains linear. I still do not understand what the problem is with rebasing though. You said "loss of information". Can you explain a bit more? -- Joel