Re: merging msvc in branch-1.11

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Thursday 10 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 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.
>
OK.  But I think removing those branches is a good move regardless (they
have always be thought as temporary topic branches, so no need to keep
them around now that they've been happily merged).

> >> 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.
>
I don't; that's why I only visulize a set of *related* branches at once,
not all of them at the same time (for example, visualizing `master' and
`maint' and `testsuite-work' at the same time is not confusing (since
`maint' is merged into `master', which is merged into `testsuite-work').
OTOH, there is no clear relationship between `maint' and `branch-1.11'
(except for the fact that they share maint as a common "baseline"), so
trying to visulize them at once is bound to end in a mess; and notice
that this happened also *before* I started to introduce my umpteenth
topic branches.

> That nest will not go away by removing branches.
>
While I don't consider the current situation as a problem, I agree it is
suboptimal in some aspects; so, if you have suggestions about how it
could be improved, I'm all ears :-)

Thanks,
  Stefano