From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes? Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:36:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87fx6sm8yl.fsf@telefonica.net> <873a2slzrr.fsf@telefonica.net> <83ws03db8v.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 1262234232 15882 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2009 04:37:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 31 05:37:05 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 1NQCmW-0000Om-D2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:37:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59837 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQCmW-0007S3-SY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:37:04 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQCmQ-0007Pb-N1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:36:58 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NQCmL-0007Jn-Gv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:36:57 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52091 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NQCmL-0007JN-Bu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:36:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f215.google.com ([209.85.218.215]:34112) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NQCmK-00024c-3e; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:36:52 -0500 Original-Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so8682200bwz.26 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:36:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HfR5FepJzboOLGP5cM+VsDZexchS3XdVTr7JaHvY9Mo=; b=mkiDmcHnCkpIe0N2FFgxT/JuTFT657p1p/lqJIof5hKUO7RJ1UcKdAgTTrTyKf2548 YDxLfIdAcR3zVbz4mVB6PPUTJORuxb2uFBI79MNT8En/7M3t3Xw2kzcugdh/HqeKp7Dr gmkQoV40taLspucOoUJz1L6nMTNKF1qKpNmEc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HQRy2z21pAcezXAPEFRFdjpVaNBB5PlYObxWTWoDtUOM0ZWBj2lFnuhCmSu0Kf//GI Uu5R/B9afG+PjPaWeI2SeHrhmD0R53Ue92kQ3hPsAXt3gb6azsemMfPk3/ab0YHj1Sc1 r1DsBndOctc4znVzguYkUpNqFGXH7ZhSd5gaA= Original-Received: by 10.204.48.144 with SMTP id r16mr8674335bkf.170.1262234210130; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:36:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83ws03db8v.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:119109 Archived-At: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 05:21, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Except that most experts on bzr I've read say rebasing is the wrong > way to go[1]. Personally, and with all due respect, I don't consider this: "There are many theoretical objections to rebasing, and I won=E2=80=99t rehash the= m here. There=E2=80=99s general consensus that rebasing is sort of icky." as = a sort of expert opinion, just biased. People used to git's rebase find it extremely useful. And, in fact, this other bit: > =E2=80=9CWhy isn=E2=80=99t rebase support in core?=E2=80=9D Rebase suppor= t is currently packaged > as a plugin. This plugin is widely distributed, even in the standard Mac = OS > X installation bundle. isn't exactly true anymore, as it is also included at least in the standard Windows standalone installation. > So I think we should not flee to that corner so easily, > upon bumping on the first problematic issue. We're not fleeing into any corner. Weren't I thinking that ChangeLog present problems that should be discussed, I wouldn't have brought the issue. > ChangeLog files will present a problem for feature branches and > quick-fix branches alike. =C2=A0Though an annoyance, I don't see how it i= s > a problem significant enough to recommend rebase as the main vehicle > of routine work, given the downside of rebasing (rewriting history > etc.). > > Am I missing something? Yes. Neither of us is "recommending rebase as the main vehicle of routine work". I was talking very specifically of a workflow I intend to use, but I have no idea how common it'll be for other people; and for my use, an interactive rebase would be a perfect option. I wouldn't dream of suggest Karl to discuss rebase on BzrForEmacsDevs, for example. Juanma