From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: rebasing Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:57:57 +0900 Message-ID: <877hr29vru.fsf@catnip.gol.com> References: <87iqannget.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <877hr2v4yu.fsf@telefonica.net> Reply-To: Miles Bader 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 1264687801 25535 80.91.229.12 (28 Jan 2010 14:10:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 28 15:09:57 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 1NaV4G-0002AA-Q6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:09:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33532 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NaV4G-0003y4-1b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:09:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NaUsq-0006rL-P0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:58:08 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NaUsm-0006q6-9r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:58:08 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39602 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NaUsm-0006q0-1x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:58:04 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp12.dentaku.gol.com ([203.216.5.74]:36951) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NaUsj-0007E2-Bn; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:58:01 -0500 Original-Received: from 218.231.96.8.eo.eaccess.ne.jp ([218.231.96.8] helo=catnip.gol.com) by smtp12.dentaku.gol.com with esmtpa (Dentaku) id 1NaUsg-0008Cv-1V; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:57:58 +0900 Original-Received: by catnip.gol.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A1EFDF8E; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:57:57 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <877hr2v4yu.fsf@telefonica.net> (=?utf-8?Q?=22=C3=93scar?= Fuentes"'s message of "Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:33:45 +0100") Original-Lines: 33 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV GOL (outbound) X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:120576 Archived-At: =C3=93scar Fuentes writes: >> I ask because for the common small random commits case, it seems _much_ >> better to just commit to the trunk locally and rebase these local >> commits on pulling from the main repository; the "keep N branches and >> merge back and forth, even for trivial commits" recipe that is >> apparently advocated for emacs seems like a huge annoyance. > > I'm having trouble figuring out which kind of workflow would benefit > from this. Unless you work disconnected, or for some other reason wish > to send upstream your quick fixes on batches, how would you benefit from > `rebase'? If you work connected, just do your quick fixes on a branch > bound to upstream, then you essentially do the same sequence of > operations you used with CVS: update & commit, and everything with > VC-dir. I don't understand what you're saying -- you mean I should give up local commits, and just use CVS-style "commits go directly to the central repo"? Often the sort of commit I'm talking about is relatively short-lived and ephemeral, but I usually do not want to commit to the central repo on the spot, I'd rather commit stuff locally and let it live in my local system for a while; I may or may not want to send it upstream or delete it or whatever. A rebase-on-pull-style workflow, gives some of the immediacy of a pure CVS-style workflow, but still allows local commits / disconnection operation / etc. I.e.: good. -Miles --=20 Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.