[Bioperl-l] Merge branch 'master' ?

[Jay Hannah]

On Jun 8, 2010, at 5:49 AM, noreply at github.com wrote:
> Commit: 0e70e88a76d638d9f0406643c37691bb20d60ceb
>    http://github.com/bioperl/bioperl-live/commit/0e70e88a76d638d9f0406643c37691bb20d60ceb
> Author: Florent Angly <florent.angly at gmail.com>
> Date:   2010-06-08 (Tue, 08 Jun 2010)
> 
> Merge branch 'master' of github.com:bioperl/bioperl-live

I'm fascinated by these commits, and my git-fu is still weak.

I think what's happening here is that any time anyone commits anything fangly is merging those changes into his own repo, which he then merges back to bioperl/bioperl-live again. 

So fangly's procedure (whatever it is), is re-committing other people's commits? Making history twice as long with (empty?) "Merge branch 'master'" messages? The diff of these commits reports that fangly is the author of other people's changes(!) yet somehow git annotate still reports that t/data/ZABJ4EA7014.CH878695.1.blast.txt was authored by Razi Khaja yesterday (correct).

Am I reading that correctly? I find that history very confusing.

In #moose they taught me to merge other people's commits using the procedure below. This is what I did yesterday to merge rkhaja/bioperl-live into bioperl/bioperl-live (per conversations in IRC). 

   git remote add rkhaja git://github.com/rkhaja/bioperl-live.git
   git fetch rkhaja
   git checkout -b rkhaja-merge rkhaja/master
   git rebase master
   git checkout master
   git merge rkhaja-merge
   git branch -d rkhaja-merge

That procedure did not create a "Merge branch 'master'" commit. So is that procedure cleaner than fangly's? Is it the rebase command that makes the difference?

I'm not picking on fangly here, I'm simply struggling to improve my own git-fu. 

Thanks,

Jay Hannah
seeker of git enlightenment
http://biodoc.ist.unomaha.edu/wiki/User:Jhannah