Re: scratch/igc as feature branch

["Gerd Möllmann" <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com>]

Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:

> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> - The fact that the branch is already worked with commits that will be
>>> directly mergable without having to do a mega rebase afterward.  Also
>>> the mega rebase would cancel all or part of the history which I find a
>>> serious disadvantage.
>>
>> Hm, that makes me curious.
>>
>> 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? If so, how would you loose that? Squashing? I'm confused.

> 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.

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.

>> 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.