Re: fast-forward only policy

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:13:07AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:33:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> >> >> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
> >> >> >> would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 'stable' was already discussed. Within GNOME 2.20, 2.22, 2.24, 2.26 etc
> >> >> > are stable. So it isn't clear.
> >> >>
> >> >> The latest one, of course.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't need branches for targets that are not going to move.
> >> >> Branches are for moving targets, tags are for fixed ones.
> >> >
> >> > That is just confusing. Really, I don't see why you don't see this.
> >>
> >> That's just how git works: branches and tags are mere pointers.
> >> There's no difference in the object storage, the only difference is
> >> logical, you use branches in a way, tags in another way.
> >
> > Don't care about Git workings.
> 
>    Don't you think that is much more relevant here than your opinions?

Why should it? I can ask if branches/tags can be renamed and so on. Plus
if stuff can be explained in text instead of git commands. I don't like
the suggestion that I am not allowed to say that I want an explanation.

> > I care about understanding a branch name.
> > Deleting branches sounds really bad (aside from purely symbolical
> > 'stable').
> >
> >> You can do stuff like:
> >
> > I don't understand Git.
> 
>    If you haven't noticed, we are talking of *GIT* branches and tags
> here. The discussion was actually about a rule on *GIT* pushes.

Don't suggest I didn't knew that. I want to know implications for users
of git.gnome.org. Just because it is Git, doesn't mean we shouldn't be
careful when changing things or I am not allowed to make comments.

-- 
Regards,
Olav