<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">I've been playing with some more samples, and it turns out I said something wrong:<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Matt Giuca <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt.giuca@gmail.com" target="_blank">matt.giuca@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Then I'll git push the result up to the server. Now the server's history will include this little detour, but at least the <i>main line</i> of development (which you can see with git log --first-parent) will just be F, E, D, C, B, A -- all of which are good builds.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Actually, the main line (git log --first-parent) will be F, C2, C1, C, B, A. D and E will be relegated to secondary-line (branch) commits. That's not ideal, because you just took main commits and made them look like children in a branch. Maybe this is the confusing history Peter was talking about.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>You can certainly do some advanced git-fu to get around this, but I can't think of an easy rule to follow off the top of my head. In that case, the refactored version may indeed be simpler. I'll have to think some more about it.</div>
</div></div></div>