automake-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: merging msvc in branch-1.11


From: Peter Rosin
Subject: Re: merging msvc in branch-1.11
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:12:37 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-10 11:02:
> On Tuesday 08 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> [dropping address@hidden
>>
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-04 11:37:
>>
>>>>   2. Create a new public branch `msvc-for-1.11', based off of
>>>>     `msvc'.
>>>>
>>> I've instead based `msvc-for-1.11' on a merge of `branch-1.11'
>>> and `msvc'.
>>
>> The history is a maze. It's very hard to follow what's going on.
>>
> For what concerns the 1.11.2 release, you shoud only be interested in
> the `maint' and `msvc-for-1.11' branches (whose roles I hope are
> obvious).

I'm not concerned with the branch *names*, I'm worried about the
numerous merges back and forth and what it will do the minds of
those trying to dig in the commit graph a couple of years from
now trying to understand how some bug percolated through it. Maybe
it's not so bad, but there are a lot of merges going on.

> In the long term, having a README document or so that explains what the
> current branches are meant to accomplish and how they're organized would
> probably be worthwhile, and could avoid a lot of confusion.
> 
> In the meantime, removing some already-merged and now inactive branches
> (e.g., `prove' and `remove-deansification') might simplify the situation
> a bit.  Will do shortly.

This is not at all my concern.

>> Is it
>> really desired to merge back maint and master into the work branches
>> with such extreme frenzy?
>>
> I'd say yes, to avoid potential future bigger conflicts when merging.
> 
> Such conflicts are bound to be more difficult to resolve, firstly
> because they will be bigger, and secondly (and most importantly)
> because the will involve much more changes done in a wider temporal
> interval -- changes whose details or exact reason we might even have
> forgotten in the meantime!

Just have a look at the attached picture (if the ml doesn't eat it) and
try to convince me that you like what you see. That nest will not go
away by removing branches.

Cheers,
Peter

Attachment: automake.png
Description: PNG image


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]