From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Locks on the Bzr repository Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:30:15 +0300 Message-ID: <837hjkp8aw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4C6D56DB.7040703@swipnet.se> <4C6D8EC5.7040901@swipnet.se> <4C6E1F0A.7070506@swipnet.se> <837hjlr78p.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkwhtws5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83tymppj62.fsf@gnu.org> <871v9t8klf.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83lj81pazq.fsf@gnu.org> <4C6F9009.3030105@swipnet.se> <19567.40614.937000.714861@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii 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 1282386507 19815 80.91.229.12 (21 Aug 2010 10:28:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:28:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jan.h.d@swipnet.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Uday S Reddy Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 21 12:28:26 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 1OmlJK-0004AT-0W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:28:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36696 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmlJI-0007l1-Do for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:28:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57042 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmlJB-0007kS-IA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:28:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmlJA-0007TG-4B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:28:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:43120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OmlJ9-0007T7-Sf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:28:16 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L7H00A00ZQEXO00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:13 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.220.100]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L7H00AH2ZR0V050@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:28:13 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <19567.40614.937000.714861@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:128949 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:38:46 +0100 > From: Uday S Reddy > Cc: Uday S Reddy , emacs-devel@gnu.org >=20 > Jan Dj=C3=A4rv writes: >=20 > > You are ignoring the fact that work usually doesn't happen in the= bound=20 > > branch, but in a separate task branch. We can continue to work t= here while=20 > > the bound branch commits. I don't see much difference. >=20 > If there isn't "much difference" then why is push being discouraged= ? The only place on the wiki which could be considered as "discouraging= " push is this: It might occur to you to save some effort by just doing bzr push directly to the upstream master from inside the TASKNAME branch: =09cd $DEVHOME/emacs/TASKNAME =09bzr push sftp://USERNAME@bzr.savannah.gnu.org/srv/bzr/emacs/trunk/ *Do not do this* -- it can cause history to be displayed in a stran= ge way in the upstream master, any mirrors or branches of it, and your= own branch later. Search for the word =E2=80=9Chidden=E2=80=9D in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2009-11/msg01021.h= tml for more details. IIRC, this was written by Stephen and Karl, and I don't see anything wrong with this warning. Do you? > If you want to work on the main branch rather than task branches, t= hen > it does make an important difference, as Stephen and I have pointed > out. Here, an unbound main branch is a lot more flexible and it wi= ll > reduce the contention on the central repo. As I wrote in an earlier post, I don't see the extra flexibility. I'= m awaiting your response to that. > > Plus, pushing many unrelated commits has a drawback as not showin= g in > > "bzr log" unless you also use the --include-merges (or -n0) switc= h, > > which makes "bzr log" significantly slower. >=20 > If Eli is trying to avoid levels in histories, then he *must be* > working on the main branch. I'm trying to keep the history linear whenever possible, yes. If you think this is not a good idea on its own right, please tell why. > And, he is stung by the bound main branch. Using an unbound main > branch will immediately improve things. Again, I don't see how am I "stung" and how an unbound branch will improve things. > Note that he also raised a logical problem. If you open a separate > branch for your work, then you don't want to put many unrelated > commits in it. That will make it appear as if they were related > commits at the top level. Using bound branches will encourage peop= le > to put unrelated commits in task branches. If you do ALL of the work in a task branch, yes. But I don't think that's the right workflow, and that's not what I use. I use task branches for 2 kinds of jobs: . prolonged development of features . forensics: debugging some issue that needs switching to earlier versions, e.g. with "bzr bisect" or "bzr revert -rNNN" (later I get rid of all the traces of these revert commands by pulling fro= m the main branch with "bzr pull --overwrite") > Whichever way I look at it, I don't see any upside to using bound > branches, but plenty of downside. Well, would you please list those downsides together? They must have been lost in the argument, because I don't see them. At most I've seen a single downside you cited -- that further development is somehow stuck until the commit from the bound branch finishes. As I wrote, I think this claim is simply false.