Re: Why not rebase instead of merge?

On 02/22/2013 05:05 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:

Somebody claiming to be Andy Georges wrote:

...

On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:50, Geoffrey Mainland wrote:

...

I don't want to bike shed, but the prevalence of empty merge commits in the repo seems both undesirable and avoidable.

I guess because rebasing means actually rewriting history. Which is undesirable in itself. Once commits have been pushed out, you should never rebase, afaik.

git pull --rebase will only end up rebasing commits you have that aren't in the remote. So no public history changes unless you've pushed somewhere else already.

I am advocating rebasing before you push, so no public history is rewritten. I am most definitely not advocating rebasing previously-pushed work. My personal opinion is that all non-public branched should be rebased. However, I would be very happy just to avoid empty merge commits. Geoff