[llvm-dev] [Openmp-dev] [Github] RFC: linear history vs merge commits

[David Greene via llvm-dev]

Tom Stellard via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:

> As part of the migration of LLVM's source code to github, we need to update
> our developer policy with instructions about how to interact with the new git
> repository.  There are a lot of different topics we will need to discuss, but
> I would like to start by initiating a discussion about our merge commit
> policy.  Should we:
>
> 1. Disallow merge commits and enforce a linear history by requiring a
>    rebase before push.
>
> 2. Allow merge commits.
>
> 3. Require merge commits and disallow rebase before push.
>
> I'm going to propose that if we cannot reach a consensus that we
> adopt policy #1, because this is essentially what we have now
> with SVN.

I agree with proposing #1 in general.  It results in a nice clean
history and will be familiar to everyone working on the project.

However, there is a place for merge commits.  If there's a bug in a
release and we want to make a point release, it might make sense to make
a commit on the release branch and then merge the release branch to
master in order to ensure the fix lands there as well.  Another option
is to commit to master first and then cherry-pick to release.  A third
option is to use the "hotfix branch" method of git flow [1], which would
result in a merge commit to the release branch and another merge commit
to master.

I've seen projects that commit to release first and then merge release
to master and also projects that commit to master and cherry-pick to
release.  I personally haven't seen projects employ the git flow hotfix
branch method rigorously.

But GitHub is read-only for almost a year, right?  So we really don't
have to decide this for a while.  I have not tried using the monorepo
and committing to SVN with it.  How does that work?  What would it do
with merge commits?

                              -David

[1] https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model