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: Incorrect merge Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:44:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87wrovh2vl.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <4CCEC526.3070502@cornell.edu> <87aaltc9rc.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83pqup53qb.fsf@gnu.org> <83fwvk6arf.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbg0jxyu.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d3qnk9am.fsf@telefonica.net> <87k4kvwu6w.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <8762wfk5r0.fsf@telefonica.net> <87eib3wp4j.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fwvjimg2.fsf@telefonica.net> <87d3qnwk0v.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1288730708 11747 80.91.229.12 (2 Nov 2010 20:45:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 20:45:08 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 02 21:45:04 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 1PDNj5-0003W2-9Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:45:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48161 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDNj3-0006dO-Bc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:45:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44572 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PDNiu-0006ap-2Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:44:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDNis-0006Mh-On for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:44:51 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:42202) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDNis-0006MV-Ex for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:44:50 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDNip-0003O2-4W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:44:47 +0100 Original-Received: from 83.42.13.98 ([83.42.13.98]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:44:47 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 83.42.13.98 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:44:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 84 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.42.13.98 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:cX65TjDwbpGMSa90pBm6uVwx5Uk= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.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:132300 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > > Uh? With common-fixes you merge the commits there into emacs-23 and > > trunk. That's all. > > No, you have to choose whether to work in -23, trunk, or common-fixes. > This involves checking whether the bug affects both or not, and > whether the fix is the same. Often trivial, but not always. > > And what if you fix a bug in trunk, and only later realize it needs to > be backported? And how is this different from the current workflow? Right now people must decide the scope of the patch. Adding the common-fixes branch simplifies the task from the conceptual POV: instead of * commit fixes for emacs-23 and trunk into emacs-23 * commit fixes intended for trunk only into trunk. * commit fixes intented for emacs-23 only into emacs-23, put something into the log message and hope it is noticed. you have * commit fixes for emacs-23 and trunk into common-fixes. * commit fixes intended for emacs-23 only into emacs-23. * same for trunk. [snip] > > You are missing the point. common-fixes will eliminate the need for > > cherry-picking (and for examining each commit on emacs-23 before merging > > into trunk). The maintainers save time and the VC history is consistent > > (with commits maintaining its identity on the branches where they are > > installed) > > It doesn't eliminate the need for cherry-picking as long as there's > more than one active branch: you can make a mistake about where to > work. If you come with "yes, but someone can make a mistake..." then any schema we can think of can be dismissed with the same reasoning. > This should be a lot less frequent in the common-fixes > workflow. It does require people who would otherwise focus on trunk > to switch between branches, and to be continuously thinking about > which branch they should be in. Again, the current workflow requires people to decide that. [snip] > Every commit on common-fixes needs to be examined before making it to > be sure that it's appropriate for both release branches (common-fixes > is never released). If you want a fool-proof method, propose a gatekeeper workflow (with several layers of verification, for enhanced security :-) [snip] > The VC history is consistent, but I don't think the maintainers save > much time and it's at a higher burden to the general contributors. The consistency on VC history is a huge win for me. The ability to quickly decide which branches contain a given commit will turn more and more important as feature branches proliferate. Right now we should put the revision id (not revision number) of a fix on the respective bug report when closing it. > And it requires everybody to adapt a new workflow at all phases of > their work, This is an exaggeration. Only people who work on emacs-23 would need to adapt their workflow (committing to common-fixes instead of emacs-23). I admit that the big hurdle is to pass the word about the new workflow, but this could be forced by making emacs-23 read-only for all except some top maintainers, who would act as gatekeepers for some time. > instead of concentrating on the cherry pick only in the > cases where it's needed. Doing the cherry-picking (with the current workflow) or the merge (with my proposed branch) is something that only a few maintainers should care about.