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: Workflow to accumulate individual changes? Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:37:10 +0100 Message-ID: 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: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1262263072 11628 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2009 12:37:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 13:37:45 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 1NQKHg-0004zK-OS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:37:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43641 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQKHh-000152-6X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:37:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQKHd-00014x-9R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:37:41 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQKHX-00014M-Tu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:37:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48538 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQKHX-00014J-Nk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:37:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f215.google.com ([209.85.218.215]:51137) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQKHU-0006LH-GH; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:37:32 -0500 Original-Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so8827632bwz.26 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:37:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3tpu4mNfZcbMkGpyEPDQRsScw/t6miIfn1hqPtn3ZpM=; b=xW2Rcrq58EPVWm7355wkEYUcsAHF2T5ft/GmGC+5Qd3O1RcHSREhHijH6dP7QF49uL 1Uey3cviF113NqjwZIhOm87tA5iqx165wJ6xFYyHtAdREndXFgLEXEhiE6Od3BorlYAW 9NUIY0/lNBys3uV+Z0X+NK/hHHXGd9dDDTMyU= 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=xIvC/vfM0vIscrY5REHBADWzd8/useWVE9yBbU8/Tf74Yy4XLEAQ0ZfRMzOKUDr3q0 em9BVtViPz/+JIyOZHkQGDniAvrkHoiS2vCJ/JyajeGxXIy4nwiUoOYxWIWI0dlwUThy 9kMC7xjHbyo7ImsRel2gk8T6FeDQbzm71cEqI= Original-Received: by 10.204.10.8 with SMTP id n8mr6329089bkn.48.1262263050219; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:37:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.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:119144 Archived-At: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:44, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Me neither. =C2=A0I'm talking about the rest of the reasons, which _are_ > described in detail. Please! The document does not show real arguments against rebase, just "questions about the necessity of rebasing in typical workflows", from the perspective of people who do not have or like rebase. For the opposite perspective, just look for a few happy git users. > I don't know anything about git, so I cannot talk about this. =C2=A0Just > remember that Stephen pointed to a posting by Linus who very > eloquently explained how rebasing is a bad idea in at least one > situation. Of course. Every user of rebase knows that: you shouldn't rebase a public branch (and even that is OK in cases where the users know that rebasing will be done). But here we were discussing *private* rebasing. > If ChangeLog maintenance is such a big problem, I think we should > resolve it here and now. =C2=A0Otherwise, it's a tail wagging the dog. Not a big problem, a small but repeated inconvencience. > IOW, what annoys Juanma Barranquero, will probably annoy a few more, > so I would not dismiss that as Juanma's private problems whose > solution concerns no one but Juanma ;-) Well, I can agree with that if you can agree that perhaps rebase *could be* the best fix after all... ;-) Juanma