On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Simon Schick
<[email protected]>wrote:
> 2012/3/19 Kris Craig <[email protected]>:
> > Simon,
> >
> > Yes that's a great recommendation and it should definitely be included
> > IMHO! However, the merge.ff option is relatively new and is not
> available
> > in many older Git clients that are still in use. So the --no-ff tag will
> > still probably be necessary for some people. Perhaps we should recommend
> > both, or would that make things too confusing?
> >
> > --Kris
> >
>
> Hi, Kris
>
> Don't really know ... Do you know which version of GIT is the first
> who implements this feature? Would it be a problem to require an
> update or the people should find their own solution?
> I think that people who don't know much about GIT or are just starting
> with GIT should be fine with that as they haven't done much with that
> or just installed the latest version.
> The only problem I can see here is that some linux-distributions
> (Debian for example) tends to keep old versions in their repositories
> ;) Anyways ...
> I think it would be max-information to link the
> stackoverflow-discussion there if someone has a question to that. But
> this (of course) has to be describe it in a easy understandable way :)
> and I think that's the most dificult part.
>
> Bye
> Simon
>
I don't know off the top of my head which version it was implemented in,
but I'm pretty sure it was relatively recent.
Here's what I wound-up doing: The merge entries on the workflow page now
contain "--no-ff" and I added an entry to the FAQ about the merge.ff option
available in newer clients. This way we should be covered either way. =)
--Kris