Posted Oct 12, 2010 19:40 UTC (Tue) by mingo
In reply to: Merge Commits
Parent article: Lessons from PostgreSQL's Git transition
... We still allow any developers (and committers) to use whatever parts of git they want as they develop, but for commits going into the main tree, we are making a number of restrictions ... We will not allow merge commits ... We will not use the author field in git to tag it with the patches original author ... we will require that author and committer are always set to the same thing, and we will then credit the author(s) (along with the reviewer(s)) in the commit message ...
Ouch, indeed this looks like a broken Git workflow.
The 'cannot review patches' argument appears to be a bad excuse - trees with merge commits are just as easy to review as linear trees. (In fact often they are easier to review as they show the natural progress of a feature instead of some artificial after-the-fact representation of it. True history is also easier to debug and bisect, etc.)
From this list alone it appears to me that someone is trying to keep central control/power, and got surprised during the Git conversion that a distributed SCM works against that.
They wont enjoy the full power of Git unless they start handling their contributors as equals and allow them to become sub-maintainers - with merge commits, true history, etc.
to post comments)