From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes? Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:06:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87d41vlok4.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87fx6sm8yl.fsf@telefonica.net> <873a2slzrr.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ws03db8v.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262236120 19829 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2009 05:08:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:08:40 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 06:08:33 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NQDGa-0006rw-9m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:08:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51667 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQDGa-0007iO-NY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:08:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQDGW-0007hy-6U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:08:04 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQDGR-0007f6-CB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:08:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60561 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQDGR-0007f0-3e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:07:59 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:42558) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQDGQ-0003uE-Jz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:07:58 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NQDFi-0006Qk-Fx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:07:14 +0100 Original-Received: from 217.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net ([88.24.214.217]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:07:14 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 217.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:07:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 53 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.red-88-24-214.staticip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kkt2sliB4W2cjOGn2cE40v6lpxY= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:119110 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> That said, what you propose could work, but of course it's quite >> hackish. Let's hope someday the rebase plugin will grow an option to >> rebase interactively, stopping before the commit. > > Except that most experts on bzr I've read say rebasing is the wrong > way to go[1]. It often is. In *this* case it is not wrong nor right. It is just what does the job. Please note the big IFs in my answer to Juanma. > So I think we should not flee to that corner so easily, upon bumping > on the first problematic issue. Agreed. If anyone thinks that rebase it the solution for his problem, please ask here first. > ChangeLog files will present a problem for feature branches and > quick-fix branches alike. Very true. On Juanma's case, if he accumulated a signicant number of small changes, rebasing can save quite a bit of work compared to creating a patch, applying it, re-writing a commit message and commit for each change. Or merging one change, edit the ChangeLog, write the commit message, commit and repeat for the next change (which possibly is the most orthodox solution and recommendable if the amount of changes is moderate.) > Though an annoyance, I don't see how it is a problem significant > enough to recommend rebase as the main vehicle of routine work, given > the downside of rebasing (rewriting history etc.). The history is rewritten at Juanma's end. For the rest of users, the final result is indistinguishable of the case where Juanma commits a series of small changes on a fast sequence. > Am I missing something? Yes. That `goto' is evil but sometimes it has its uses :-) I concede that rebase here can be questionable as the most efficient or dumb-proof solution (you have to be very careful or the whole process can be ruined and repeated; it is strongly advised to backup your branch first.) The ChangeLog is a big incovenience for working locally while upstream access is restricted. I hope that after some time, people will experience the fact that a ChangeLog is completely redundant on a changeset-based VCS. -- Óscar