Re: [Freemint-discuss] Bintray integration / git force-push needed

[Miro K. <mir...@gm...>]

>
> That gives importance to what *really* happened on the contributor's fork:
> when it has been forked, when commits have really been done, or even
> reworked... And usually, that's completely useless.
>
[...]

> The solution is simple: use *rebase* to integrate pull requests, instead
> of *merge*.
>
However this doesn't solve the problem of useless/reworked commits, does
it? You just get them in a linear fashion.

Of course, we could still *merge* the Pull Requests some times, when it
> makes sense, but IMHO this should not be the general solution.

As discussed here: https://github.com/freemint/freemint/issues/26 I'm more
in favour to have a default policy (say, rebase) and if it differs, let the
author to specify how he proposes to include his work. Sometimes the
history is not worth it at all (i.e. squash / classic patch would work
best), sometimes history is worth having as a separate branch.

However Alan seems to be quite in favour of the classic merge commits. And
with him being not so active it's hard to discuss matters like this and
take action. :-/


> Use *rebase* in most case. Otherwise, don't complain about messy history.

Well, in this case (a feature USB branch) the merge issue would stay as one
would certainly prefer to use classic merge.

-- 
MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
http://mikro.atari.org