Re: master has switched from Automake to GNU Make

[Stephen Leake]

martin rudalics <address@hidden> writes:

> All this is about the final result of what a branch was supposed to
> accomplish and I agree with you here.  

Ok.

> My concerns were with what happens in the branch as long as it is not
> final. Why throw away its history when pushing? Because it contains
> silly code its author would be ashamed of?

Yes, but I would phrase it "it contained a failed approach, so here's a
better approach".

Or, "the sequence of commits is too hard to follow, since it has false
starts and back-tracking, so here's a cleaner sequence".

One could argue that new approach should have yet another branch. Which
is a good idea if you are not _really_ sure the second approach is
better, or will work.

Partly it depends on how closely people are cooperating on the branch.
If it's two or more developers actively working on all the code, then
pushing a totally new set of commits is a Bad Idea; the other developers
will lose work (or time in recovering).

But our presumed use case is one developer actively working on the code,
and asking for reviews. In which case, a clean sequence of
understandable commits is a big plus.

-- 
-- Stephe