Re: scratch/igc as feature branch

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 06:15:08 +0200
> 
> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> Does it mean that in the end, before merging, every commit must have a
> >> conforming commit message?
> >
> > I don't know if we have to be 100% strict on this, my opinion is that
> > would be a pity to loose the history of the branch we already have, but
> > others might have other opinions.  
> 
> Not sure what you mean with loosing the history. Do you mean the git
> history?

Yes.

> If so, how would you loose that? Squashing? I'm confused.

If you rebase or squash, you lose the Git history of the branch.

> > OTOH given we know *now* that the goal is to try to merge, it would
> > feel very weired to me to deliberatly ignore what we have in
> > CONTRIBUTE as requirements for commits we are writing now and we know
> > we want to include.
> 
> Sorry, I was asking about existing commits, not the future. I'm asking
> because you mentioned rebasing which I take to mean interactive rebasing
> to write new commit messages otherwise I don't know how rebasing comes
> into play.

He mean "git rebase" instead of "git merge">  I don't think this is
what you mean when you say "interactive rebasing".

> My question is if that's correct and if so who is supposed to write all
> these commit messages? And the number of commits give an impression of
> the amount of work involved.

See my response: there's no need to write such massive log messages.

> >> 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?
> >
> > We are discussing igc, how do these other commits come into play?
> 
> The igc branch on github is the original, containing the whole truth
> from day 1. I created scratch/igc by taking my changes after some 500+
> commits and applying them to master at that time. (And FWIW I'm not
> using scratch/igc for anything.) I suppose you know all that.
> 
> My question is what's with commit message of the initial commit in
> scratch/igc? There is definitely a cut point there. The history of 500
> commits is lost. Git history.

There's nothing we can reasonably do with that, so don't worry about
that.  In the final merge commit we'll need to describe changes
relative to the fork point, where the scratch/igc branch was forked
from the-then master, that's all.