From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uday S Reddy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Locks on the Bzr repository Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:51:44 +0100 Message-ID: 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282427548 14913 80.91.229.12 (21 Aug 2010 21:52:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:52:28 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 21 23:52:27 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 1OmvzH-0007IY-BO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:52:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50597 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmvzG-0002O9-OB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:52:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49990 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OmvzA-0002Ms-GT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:52:21 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Omvz9-0004o3-5D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:52:20 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:34669) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Omvz8-0004nv-OQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Omvz6-0007EU-3a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:52:16 +0200 Original-Received: from cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com ([92.232.137.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:52:16 +0200 Original-Received: from u.s.reddy by cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:52:16 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 30 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 In-Reply-To: <83pqxboi38.fsf@gnu.org> 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:128997 Archived-At: On 8/21/2010 8:56 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> I'm thinking in terms of >> simply committing all changes locally until the end of the work >> session, then doing the merge to mirror and push to upstream in a >> batch at the end of the session. > > That'd be against the "not lumping together unrelated changes" > request. Maybe I interpret it too strictly, but it will take Stefan's > or Chong's word to make me change this. If you use an unbound branch with commit-rebase-push cycle, then commits won't be lumped together. They will appear as independent commits in the central repo. Lumping happens if you use bound branches and try to do local commits. >> The recommended workflow (at least as Karl and I wrote it) assumed >> that "one-commit changes" would be performed in a separate branch, >> and merged into the mirror (bound branch) in batches. > > This would again fly in the face of the "don't lump together..." > request, AFAIU. Exactly. There is no upside to bound branches. You could try the rebase-based workflow that Stephen outlined in his message. That won't lump the commits together. Cheers, Uday