From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: merge conlict? Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:11:34 -0500 Message-ID: References: <877hr61c68.fsf@telefonica.net> <87iqaqyy6s.fsf@telefonica.net> <87eileys7h.fsf@telefonica.net> <87aaw2yrec.fsf@telefonica.net> <87r5pexbm6.fsf@telefonica.net> <87my02xa5l.fsf@telefonica.net> <87iqaqx81j.fsf@telefonica.net> <87eildyj1q.fsf@telefonica.net> <87aaw1ydqy.fsf@telefonica.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1264519726 1845 80.91.229.12 (26 Jan 2010 15:28:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:28:46 +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 Tue Jan 26 16:28:38 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 4.50) id 1NZnLK-0000CQ-2Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:28:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40461 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZnLL-0007ra-6Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:28:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NZn4w-0006dy-Qz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:11:42 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NZn4s-0006YN-0G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:11:42 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34933 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZn4r-0006YE-TM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:11:37 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:19996 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NZn4p-0006qt-B3; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:11:35 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAFuUXktFpaAe/2dsb2JhbACBRtgchDkEik4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,347,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="54581698" Original-Received: from 69-165-160-30.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.165.160.30]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2010 10:11:34 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 6738170033; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:11:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:08:04 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:120437 Archived-At: > Actually, no proposal that's even remotely close to being complete was > ever laid on the table. Without such a proposal, this thread has long > ago degenerated into useless noise. There is no proposal. I was just trying to resolve a confusion in the discussion (and clearly failed to do so). >> My experience is indeed that Bzr helps me keep track of local changes >> and work on long-time branches, but usually when it gets time to install >> on the trunk, I really port the changes "by hand" rather than just ask >> Bzr to merge some (set of) change(s), so that I can clean them up (and >> often enough, update&improve them). Many people use "rebase" for that >> clean up. > I agree with =D3scar: this is a lot of potentially unnecessary work. Who cares: it just describes my workflow, nothing more. If/when I feel like such a workflow should be turned into a convention that other people should follow, rest assured that I'll do so in a separate thread. > Put yourself in my shoes: in the bidi branch I have roughly 2-3 > commits for each week since August 2009 (1-2 commits for merges from > mainline, and 1 more for the bidi changes themselves I did during that > weekend). This sounds like not too much, but it accumulates over the > months; do your math. Having to sift through all that when the time > comes to merge with the trunk is not my idea of efficient use of my > scarce resources. Especially since I don't see the boost in utility > that would justify such an investment. The need to clean up the > ChangeLog entries is already a PITA, but that is at least marginally > bearable (because most intermediate entries are simply deleted). If you go back in time, you'll see that I've generally been on the "don't even bother to clean up the ChangeLog" side of the discussion. Stefan