Re: scratch/igc as feature branch

[Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>]

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.  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.

> 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?

  Andrea