svn - Is it better to use a separate commit message for a git merge? -


I came from an SVN background, so I'm not sure what the typical git workflow looks like when you merge in SVN , You provide a committed message describing the merge. This is necessary because the merge-tracking of SVN has been historically poor.

I noticed that the default behavior of git is to automatically get the result of the merge, if it succeeds. This means that the log will not normally show a merge, so in history everything looks like it was developed in a branch. Is it better to show mergence as an additional commitment? I can think of several reasons why and why not, but I need some input from other users.

Unless you select - no-merges option git log , it will generally show a merger, which is given a brief auto-generated commentary details.

This is generally okay because git records the interesting characteristics of the original and a merge, its components are the branches.

Try using a git log - graph - line or a graphical history viewer and you (should!) Be convinced that the way the git records merge , That is very important and useful, which is longer than the long-running merge comment message.

The message was something 'magical' that was done in the resolution, it is easy to add manual intervention to this point in this way.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MySql variables and php -

c# - How can I find out if there are windows above a control? -

javascript - Classic ASP "ExecuteGlobal" statement acting differently on two servers -