Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eru 965 days ago
If there's no merge conflict (and the tests pass), would the tool also change master to the new merge commit?

Or are all the merge commits just made provisionally to inform you, but don't change master?
2 comments
Arch-TK 965 days ago
>would the tool also change master to the new merge commit

Not in my experience, no.

The goal is just to keep you aware of what problems you're likely to run into if you tried to push for your change to be merged in at the present moment. If these problems are due to work another team is doing the idea is then that you might begin conversations with that other team to discuss how best to sort these things out.

link
crdrost 965 days ago
One of the easiest tools in this regard is just a “test” that blocks merging if the request is n commits behind master—just enforcing a rebase whenever you update a pull request. Combine with forbidding fast forward merges for pull requests (just let the code review tool generate a merge commit) and your `git log --graph` becomes much mor bounded in terms of how bad it can get.
link
eru 965 days ago
Do you see `git log --graph` becoming entangled as a problem in itself, or as a symptom of a problem?

Your suggestion seems to help with the former, but not really the latter, or does it?

You might like https://bors.tech/ however.

link