On 31 January 2016 at 19:24, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 31.01.2016, 13:10 -0500 schrieb Geoffrey Mainland:
My usual git workflow is to work on a feature branch, get a nice clean set of patches, each of which implements a discrete bit of functionality, rebase onto master, and then merge with an empty merge commit, i..e, *not* fast-forward.
if you want to go through the trouble, you are certainly welcome to do so. The fact that phab squashes commits into one is more an artifact of its VCS-agnosticity rather than a deliberate decision by us.
When I want a git history (or just my nice git commit messages) preserved, I create a phab differetian revision as usual, but then manually amend the git commit to contain the line Differential Revision: https://phabricator.haskell.org/Dnnnn and push, once the DR has been accepted, by normal git means. I just have to remember to indicate in the DR (e.g. in the summary) that I want to do it this way.
FWIW, I agree with Geoffrey, and in addition to the benefits he listed, I appreciate that committing "kernel.org-style" improves bisect'ability. I used to dislike merge commits myself until I realized the usefulness of finding merge points in the history. So, I don't understand how collapsing everything into one big commit can make any sense. Is it really impossible to tell phabricator (or arcanist) to preserve a carefully prepared patch set, and if so, why does it insist on that?