From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes? Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:59:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87pr5vj7f7.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87fx6sm8yl.fsf@telefonica.net> <873a2slzrr.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ws03db8v.fsf@gnu.org> <87d41vlok4.fsf@telefonica.net> <83vdfnc831.fsf@gnu.org> 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 1262289679 16544 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2009 20:01:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:01:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 21:01:10 2009 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 4.50) id 1NQRCo-0002Ae-KB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:01:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60416 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQRCp-0005ir-1w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:01:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQQFg-0003ta-Je for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:00:04 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQQFb-0003sz-Us for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:00:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39106 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQQFb-0003sw-Py for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:59:59 -0500 Original-Received: from impaqm1.telefonica.net ([213.4.138.1]:29139) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQQFb-0004a3-AN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:59:59 -0500 Original-Received: from IMPmailhost5.adm.correo ([10.20.102.126]) by IMPaqm1.telefonica.net with bizsmtp id Puq51d00G2jdgqJ01uzy4d; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:59:58 +0100 Original-Received: from qcore ([88.24.214.217]) by IMPmailhost5.adm.correo with BIZ IMP id Puzw1d00P4hzqmo1luzxeN; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:59:58 +0100 X-TE-authinfo: authemail="981711563$telefonica.net" |auth_email="981711563@telefonica.net" X-TE-AcuTerraCos: auth_cuTerraCos="cosuitnetc01" In-Reply-To: <83vdfnc831.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:27:30 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.90 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:01:05 -0500 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:119169 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> If anyone thinks that rebase it the solution for his problem, please >> ask here first. > > So what problem was it in this case, for which rebase is a solution? It was considered as a hack for editing the ChangeLog dates of old local commits before sending them upstream. > Is it the case of a number of small unrelated changes that somehow > accumulated in the local branch? Yes, it is about sending upstream a series of small changes that you accumulated on a branch (because you had no net access of because commits to upstream were temporarily restricted for whatever reason.) There are two problems with this: first, merging the ChangeLog entries correctly (mainly updating dates) and second, not having to merge and commit all those changes one by one. If you agree that the quickfixes->merge-to-trunk->commit workflow is the right thing, you don't need rebase here: you have to merge and commit to upstream each change individually and you can edit the ChangeLog at that point. If you think that having to merge a small change is an unnecessary burden and prefer to commit directly to upstream, rebase is the solution but the ChangeLog is on the way forcing you to resort to a hack for editing it. If it no were ChangeLog, sending upstream that series of small changes would need just two commands (rebase & push). The general issue here is the impact the ChangeLog has on off-line working, including into the concept of off-line feature branches that live for more than a day. [snip] --=20 =C3=93scar