BitBucket Offers Git Support

[Kagamin]

Alex R�nne Petersen Wrote:

> On 02-11-2011 16:33, Kagamin wrote:
> > Alex Rønne Petersen Wrote:
> >
> >> 3) This is absolutely essential in distributed development. When you
> >> work on a large feature in a fork, you typically end up with lots of
> >> commits. When you send this work upstream, you don't want to cause noise
> >> in the history. Rebasing helps in avoiding this by squashing commits
> >> together to get a nice, clean history.
> >
> > I thought, a developer pushes his changes as a branch, which is later merged to main. Merge is done as one big commit, so the main branch looks like 1. merge database, 2. merge collections, 3. merge gui - isn't this your clean history?
> 
> The merge itself can be a commit (if you use git merge instead of git 
> pull), but there is no reason to eliminate the *entire* history when 
> pulling in a branch.

Isn't the merge commit connected with the branch it was merged from? So if you want history of the branch, it's still there, it's just not main's history.