"private-kvp" merge reverted other changes since November.
jralls at ceridwen.us
Wed May 14 00:35:58 EDT 2014
On May 13, 2014, at 9:01 PM, Mike Alexander <mta at umich.edu> wrote:
> --On May 13, 2014 9:17:58 PM +0100 Colin Law <clanlaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It’s not. I see no reason to abandon a branch just because it’s
>>> merged into master, and if you really have a long-running branch
>>> where you do all of your work, neither do you. It won’t avoid the
>>> ladder look, either. There will just be a bunch of shortish branches
>>> instead of one long one.
>> If you want to work in that way I suggest having a look at git rebase.
>> Rather than merging the branch into master this effectively moves the
>> base of the branch along to the current master and makes the tree look
>> much simpler.
> That's what I do. I rebase my branches onto master each time it is updated. This seems to work well and keeps the tree much simpler.
That's the SVN way. We discussed this back in March  and decided that we're not going to do that anymore. If you want to revisit that you need a better argument than "that's the way I've always done it", considering that the Git community at large doesn't seem to consider it a "best practice".
More information about the gnucash-devel