From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?B?TGx1w61z?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Locks on the Bzr repository Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:05:35 +0200 Message-ID: <86fwy4xisg.wl%lluis@fulla.xlab.taz> 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> <83aaogpcbu.fsf@gnu.org> <87vd737pxd.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83pqxboi38.fsf@gnu.org> <19568.59349.718000.978281@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <19570.10774.921000.853692@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <878w3x7h8u.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <19570.27753.731000.392172@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <87zkwc5xnr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <86hbikxk3k.wl%lluis@fulla.xlab.taz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282655156 451 80.91.229.12 (24 Aug 2010 13:05:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:05:56 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 24 15:05:53 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 1OntCK-0002jp-1O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:05:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36360 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OntCJ-0000kW-Fo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:05:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47493 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OntCD-0000kB-F6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:05:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OntCB-0005nD-Fs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:05:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:48054 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OntCB-0005mu-5Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:05:43 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2010 13:05:41 -0000 Original-Received: from 89.Red-83-50-198.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net (EHLO localhost) [83.50.198.89] by mail.gmx.net (mp050) with SMTP; 24 Aug 2010 15:05:41 +0200 X-Authenticated: #12333383 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18byE0YiKcbwHiG5iBBSkYp22YOOYMV3/YFmy9P7l 9qZ/UpkIYnpC4i In-Reply-To: <86hbikxk3k.wl%lluis@fulla.xlab.taz> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/23.2 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:129131 Archived-At: Llu=C3=ADs writes: > Just to make sure I understand it. Suppose I'm working on a branch with a= fairly > large set of changes and it has been merged back to trunk. After a while = a bug > is found on my code, which was not thoroughly tested, or a new relatively= minor > functionality is added related to the code on my branch. Should this be > committed on my branch and then followed with a merge to trunk? Or should= this > live in a completely new branch that will be merged back to trunk once it= 's well > tested? And now that I think of it. Suppose the case (like emacs) of having a main development branch where new features and bug fixes as merged, and branches= for tagging minor releases as bugs are fixed on each major version (i.e., emacs-23). If a bug is fixed on the release branch (emacs-23) using branch merges, so = that the history of emacs-23 will read "fix bug N", how can the same history cla= rity be maintained in trunk? I mean, both the emacs-23 branch and trunk would li= ke to benefit from fixing those bugs, but if the release branch is merged into tr= unk, the nice messages from emacs-23 are lost once merged into trunk, right? And merging the new feature/fix branch into both emacs-23 and trunk would provi= de the desired history structure outcome, but this is kind of troublesome as t= he merge operation must be performed twice... I imagine this is exactly the pl= ace where rebase makes sense (merge new branch into emacs-23, then rebase emacs= -23 into trunk), but this should in fact be an operation that is performed only= by a small set of developers. Am I missing something? Or is this precisely the workflow emacs is supposed= to use? Lluis --=20 "And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn something new, the whole world becomes that much richer." -- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom Tollbooth