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 14:37:19 +0200 Message-ID: <86hbikxk3k.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282653532 25965 80.91.229.12 (24 Aug 2010 12:38:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:38:52 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 24 14:38:49 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 1Onsm7-0003EN-7R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:38:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50193 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Onsm6-0005Xr-KH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:38:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57954 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Onskp-0004v8-QQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:37:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Onsko-000224-7c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:37:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:41377 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Onskn-00021f-Ry for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:37:26 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2010 12:37:22 -0000 Original-Received: from 89.Red-83-50-198.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net (EHLO localhost) [83.50.198.89] by mail.gmx.net (mp046) with SMTP; 24 Aug 2010 14:37:22 +0200 X-Authenticated: #12333383 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+gLakmSUKg/aaHrgCKPXxcgucNEe80FKR2UsrgSB XyWp0bpFQnieR/ In-Reply-To: <87zkwc5xnr.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> 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:129129 Archived-At: Stephen J Turnbull writes: > Uday S Reddy writes: >> Stephen J. Turnbull writes: >> >> > This is not true in general. In particular, the workflow >> > suggested in BzrForEmacsDevs can produce a "clean history"[1] >> > without rebase, although it may require remerging branches before >> > pushing because of the race condition. >> Yes, the current workflow does achieve clean history, but at the >> cost of removing any gestation period for fixes that the developers >> might want. > Not at all. I'm not sure if Eli would do a "one-commit" patch in a > separate workspace, and then merge, but he's said several times now > that he uses multiple workspaces, at least for feature branches. It's > certainly possible to have a "feature branch" for a one-line patch. > So you put your change in a separate workspace and test it there. You > merge when you're happy with it. This is nicer with rebase, I admit, > but it's not impossible without it. 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? Now that I think of it, I think I start to see the reason for nested history and the suggestion of not using rebase. Even for the smallest bug fix or feature addition, a full branch should be created, and every change should be thoroughly tested in there. Then, trunk would be composed of just merge messages like "add subsystem Y", "add feature X to subsystem Y", "fix bug N on Y". This would produce a log in trunk that would very closely resemble the contents of a NEWS file, but at the expense of a strict branch/test/merge discipline, which is not bad per-se. Lluis -- "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