3 ms·
> When development is complete record an explicit merge This is so important I felt it necessary to quote it and restate it as a comment. Not knowing this ahe
by jheriko 13y ago
> When development is complete record an explicit merge
This is so important I felt it necessary to quote it and restate it as a comment.
Not knowing this ahead of time caused me to have a serious problem on ship day that most source control solutions make trivial to fix - it got solved in the end, but that hiccup was unwelcome. The result was that I threw git out as a viable option for source control (until hg screws me I have no reason to switch back beyond its popularity).
Bad defaults are bugs imo...
EDIT: to be clear i'm referring to the advice to use --no-ff for a merge. i am of the opinion that --no-ff should be the default, because using it causes no damage, but not using it can cause problems.
- ionforce 13y agoWhat are you talking about?
- tghw 13y agoI believe he is referring to the git workflows and tutorials that encourage rewriting history in a potentially lossy way. Mercurial can do the same sort of history rewriting, to a point, but it is not the default workflow and requires that you explicitly enable that functionality. Even then, when you push a modified history to the central repository, you have the old history around still. Whether or not this is desired is up to your team's workflow, but it does make it harder to lose something.
- jheriko 13y agonot exactly, i'm referring to the difficulty in undoing a committed merge if you don't use the --no-ff flag as suggested in this article. i believe this is precisely why they suggest using it - because on private branches you can undo merges in much more destructive ways which are not viable on a shared repo - they suggest using --no-ff for when you merge in a feature branch (edit: it is precisely why and there is an article linked from the original discussing the pros/cons of merge and rebase)
- sofal 13y agoWhat on Earth does "unpick" mean and where does that term come from?
- jheriko 13y agoi'm using it in the sense of English - its not a specialist term or a piece of jargon. i.e. I mean 'undo', 'revert', 'reverse' - unpick just feels more appropriate because its often a fiddly process if you are doing anything more than a simple revert or back-out type operation.
- pessimizer 13y agoSounds like the opposite of cherry-pick.
- jheriko 13y agoi'll edit it since its confusing. in hindsight undo is the obvious choice of word
- jheriko 13y agoif you read the section with the header i quoted - that is the thing i am referring to. using --no-ff to make it easy to unpick a faulty merge on a shared repo.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]