Re: scratch/igc as feature branch

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>
> Cc: acorallo@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:14:24 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > No, we only need to provide a commit log message that describes the
> > changes wrt the revision before the merge.  For example, a new file or
> > a new function that saw gobs of commits on the branch needs only to be
> > mentioned as new file or new function.  Other places need to be
> > mentioned as if all the changes were done in one go, and changes which
> > were later reverted don't need to be mentioned at all.
> >
> > IOW, think about describing the merge "as if" you've rebased the
> > branch onto master (I say "as if" because IMO actually rebasing is not
> > a good idea).
> 
> Let try me formulate in my own words what I understood, to see it is
> right.
> 
> The commits before the merge don't need new new commit messages. So,
> there's is no interactive rebasing required. The commit message of the
> merge consists of a change log entry describing all effective changes
> between master and igc at that time (it describes the diff at that
> time.
> 
> Right?

Yes.

> >> Also, there are probably many hundreds of commits that are not in
> >> scratch/igc at all, but only in my original.  What's with those?
> >
> > If they don't affect the code after the merge, they don't need to be
> > mentioned in the commit log message.  Or did you mean something other
> > than commit log messages?
> 
> Well, Andrea talked about the importance of history. And >50% of the
> history are not on savannah. I guess I just don't understand what he
> means with history which should be preserved or how h expressed it.

I believe I answered that in another email.