| commit | 5065ce412ef083a02288c1972ea3d07423cace0e | |
| author | brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> | |
| Sun, 20 Sep 2020 23:22:29 +0000 (20 23:22 +0000) | ||
| committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | |
| Mon, 21 Sep 2020 04:29:02 +0000 (20 21:29 -0700) | ||
| tree | 6f0f70d9cfa95ad850c39e5efa657f81711fa3e1 | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 54e85e7af1ac9e9a92888060d6811ae767fea1bc | commitdiff |
docs: explain why squash merges are broken with long-running branches
In many projects, squash merges are commonly used, primarily to keep a
tidy history in the face of developers who do not use logically
independent, bisectable commits. As common as this is, this tends to
cause significant problems when squash merges are used to merge
long-running branches due to the lack of any new merge bases. Even very
experienced developers may make this mistake, so let's add a FAQ entry
explaining why this is problematic and explaining that regular merge
commits should be used to merge two long-running branches.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In many projects, squash merges are commonly used, primarily to keep a
tidy history in the face of developers who do not use logically
independent, bisectable commits. As common as this is, this tends to
cause significant problems when squash merges are used to merge
long-running branches due to the lack of any new merge bases. Even very
experienced developers may make this mistake, so let's add a FAQ entry
explaining why this is problematic and explaining that regular merge
commits should be used to merge two long-running branches.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
| Documentation/gitfaq.txt | diffblobblamehistory |