From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Incorrect merge Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:19:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4CCEC526.3070502@cornell.edu> <87aaltc9rc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83pqup53qb.fsf@gnu.org> <83fwvk6arf.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1288651000 13253 80.91.229.12 (1 Nov 2010 22:36:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, michael.albinus@gmx.de, kbrown@cornell.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 01 23:36:34 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PD2y2-0003MD-TI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 23:36:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45869 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PD2jT-0002Py-HG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:20:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39204 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PD2jK-0000Yj-LU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:19:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PD2jC-0004rf-SJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:19:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:58925) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PD2jC-0004rU-L6; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:19:46 -0400 Original-Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so415965wwi.30 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Re+KbsOK02h0v5Vgwp0ONEQW7hoJZTTtaHx6vnWlwRM=; b=uRe3TxkfqO10aGToQNtKe0LW/9r8Bh1M5WAptIaJ9I9x5A2eqpguwhvZc/IUXRckxV myos3dppja663S262IZpzHZ1VtOcZM0MvxEJVgrSCNtYSzNjsvDAkRcY/vZF4hssOdzp 062FRkycst7wigoQ0jvnWsbjiNMEeCz8CAY/w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cV6Eb5UbqxgGnyXpFsq1ktsN2rGuyj+6AfMksMNLWAFn8i82LDjZVRAWeUjQsdHYRH cuh9R7wfWYWFwFTZXhQGnt7gJ3521x6N6VffGhPQSSuxgJL4jDqNvlqN3MaAurglmdpU 51FYYq0gA3WaJ5ND3s++O3IUeCppN1RpCmU/c= Original-Received: by 10.216.164.66 with SMTP id b44mr255940wel.81.1288649985479; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.166.204 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:19:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83fwvk6arf.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:132259 Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 21:37, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Suggestions are welcome. I don't think there are magic bullets. Either we note somewhere (in a file, for example) which revisions in the branches must not be committed to the trunk, or we make sure that the info is conspicuous enough in the patches themselves so the person doing the merge does not miss it. Adding a note to the commit log was suggested, and in fact followed in this particular case, but during the merge is usually not necessary to look at the commit log messages unless a conflict arises or you suspect trouble somehow. A note as the first line in the ChangeLog entry would be more visible, IMO. Perhaps also comments in the source, though that would be messy/ugly for big patches. Less significant, but more error prone than porting unwanted patches to the trunk is merging the ChangeLogs. In the merges I've done from emacs-23, making sure the resulting ChangeLogs were updated with the relevant entries (and nothing more and nothing less), was the most time-consuming aspect of the merge. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma