From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-201225-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 122461 invoked by alias); 27 Dec 2019 11:35:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 122448 invoked by uid 89); 27 Dec 2019 11:35:31 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*MI:sk:d9a8603, extent, wish
X-HELO: digraph.polyomino.org.uk
Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (81.187.227.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:35:30 +0000
Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost)	by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)	(envelope-from <jsm@polyomino.org.uk>)	id 1ikntp-0001vh-7C; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:35:21 +0000
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:35:00 -0000
From: Joseph Myers <jsm@polyomino.org.uk>
To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,     Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org>,     GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@gnu.org>,     "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@thyrsus.com>, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,     Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT
In-Reply-To: <d9a8603d-f59e-beeb-508a-807f78f9e126@arm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1912271130410.7351@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1912161407130.3352@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20191216153649.GE3152@gate.crashing.org> <a16acfd7be55efb17ebd767d03eec6bea4159ffe.camel@redhat.com> <or36d83jv0.fsf@livre.home> <20191225120747.GA96669@thyrsus.com> <orh81n1uv0.fsf@livre.home> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1912261054320.27097@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20191226111633.GJ10088@tucnak> <5DCEA32B-3E36-4400-B931-9F4E2A8F3FA5@linaro.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1912261632130.28986@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20191226183553.GK10088@tucnak> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1912261858420.30156@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <d9a8603d-f59e-beeb-508a-807f78f9e126@arm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00443.txt.bz2

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:

> I'm not really sure I understand why we don't want merge commits into
> trunk, especially for large changes.  Performing archaeology on a change
> is just so much easier if the development history is just there.

To some extent it fits with the principle of separating changes to 
workflow from the actual move to git (as the existing state is that we 
have a linear history on trunk and the few merge properties that were 
there were later deleted).  So after the conversion we could consider if 
for future merges we wish to use merge commits.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk