Re: improving our workflow with better tools - let's test things.

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

A couple of messages accidentally went off-list, forwarding them back here with 
Werner's agreement :-)

On 21/10/13 08:02, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > The other advantage is that the merge commit is "authored" by the
> > person with master commit access who approves the merge request.
> > So, you have in history not just who wrote what, but also who took
> > the decision to include it.  That can be valuable.
>
> Hmm.  In case this is important, you have to GPG-sign patches,
> possible since git version 1.7.9.  I think that lilypond doesn't
> belong into the category of programs where this is necessary.

Yes, GPG-signed patches can be used to track authorization, approval etc., but 
as you say, it's overkill for something like Lilypond.  I'm just talking instead 
about having an easily visible record of "Who reviewed/approved this?".

It's surely a matter of taste, but personally on a large-ish project with lots 
of contributors, I find the "only merge commits in the master branch" approach 
to be quite useful as a way of keeping a clean overview of changes to the 
codebase, with the option to drill deeper if necessary.

> You might read
>
>    http://mikegerwitz.com/papers/git-horror-story.html
>
> on this topic.

Thanks for that -- had not come across it before.