From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: scratch/igc as feature branch Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:15:35 +0300 Message-ID: <86cyntadiw.fsf@gnu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11638"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acorallo@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 04 08:16:40 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sPFlo-0002sK-8S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:16:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPFlG-0006w5-Vm; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 02:16:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPFko-0006cf-AJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 02:15:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sPFkn-0006BF-UG; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 02:15:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=2YUsqAikAeTMbW5mZRILPB9EAkA/trS8RtIh7ClmPTw=; b=LOlQ4aclh6D7PwcAaCSV j48KeFBXSEoKBiKo4p+vI9rWFo/7X7UcJVwLtmkkR0qSkpQjEppWNERmZgJU4+nQpAyKeac7REEUk +Lr/BKL2lF/MFM0GUepK5VgGO6zWln1yLscg4gbliYDJDAZDfe8AWot0kbK0NlszVCc8K6tW/iC7X jik2J1q2Yne8I4O9hkyKgUph23ZJ2sWJzP3zHtJUSB0UlZgoa8sR/DTnH8G3IHkUYUHDZKXk8NQRX k0MH3DoY3kjelewAKtGso5uMi6pkPn1/x6eMXxLG56BcCVpmydyqdL5rHU4pnXTgfNbvQUAeteQfr bABNQ70GDLB9FA==; In-Reply-To: (message from Gerd =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= on Thu, 04 Jul 2024 06:15:08 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:321303 Archived-At: > From: Gerd Möllmann > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 06:15:08 +0200 > > Andrea Corallo writes: > > >> Does it mean that in the end, before merging, every commit must have a > >> conforming commit message? > > > > I don't know if we have to be 100% strict on this, my opinion is that > > would be a pity to loose the history of the branch we already have, but > > others might have other opinions. > > Not sure what you mean with loosing the history. Do you mean the git > history? Yes. > If so, how would you loose that? Squashing? I'm confused. If you rebase or squash, you lose the Git history of the branch. > > OTOH given we know *now* that the goal is to try to merge, it would > > feel very weired to me to deliberatly ignore what we have in > > CONTRIBUTE as requirements for commits we are writing now and we know > > we want to include. > > Sorry, I was asking about existing commits, not the future. I'm asking > because you mentioned rebasing which I take to mean interactive rebasing > to write new commit messages otherwise I don't know how rebasing comes > into play. He mean "git rebase" instead of "git merge"> I don't think this is what you mean when you say "interactive rebasing". > My question is if that's correct and if so who is supposed to write all > these commit messages? And the number of commits give an impression of > the amount of work involved. See my response: there's no need to write such massive log messages. > >> Also, there are probably many hundreds of > >> commits that are not in scratch/igc at all, but only in my original. > >> What's with those? > > > > We are discussing igc, how do these other commits come into play? > > The igc branch on github is the original, containing the whole truth > from day 1. I created scratch/igc by taking my changes after some 500+ > commits and applying them to master at that time. (And FWIW I'm not > using scratch/igc for anything.) I suppose you know all that. > > My question is what's with commit message of the initial commit in > scratch/igc? There is definitely a cut point there. The history of 500 > commits is lost. Git history. There's nothing we can reasonably do with that, so don't worry about that. In the final merge commit we'll need to describe changes relative to the fork point, where the scratch/igc branch was forked from the-then master, that's all.