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: [elpa] 01/01: Add requires to fix separate compilation. Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:45:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20141126200728.31493.64699@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87k32fafct.fsf@thinkpad-t440p.tsdh.org> <87egsn8iu7.fsf@thinkpad-t440p.tsdh.org> <8761dz8d3n.fsf@thinkpad-t440p.tsdh.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417200363 25741 80.91.229.3 (28 Nov 2014 18:46:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:46:03 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 28 19:45:56 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XuQYF-00079s-Fc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:45:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45547 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuQYF-0001Yl-1m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:45:55 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33136) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuQXo-0001YY-9V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:45:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuQXf-0003ch-MC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:45:27 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:60785) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XuQXf-0003cP-GS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:45:19 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id sASIjH5X017079; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:45:17 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 3FA373EB6; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:45:17 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <8761dz8d3n.fsf@thinkpad-t440p.tsdh.org> (Tassilo Horn's message of "Fri, 28 Nov 2014 18:11:08 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV5139=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9393 : core <5139> : inlines <1569> : streams <1350042> : uri <1836504> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:178433 Archived-At: >> No, "re-initialize" is never right because it loses history and might >> overwrite and lose changes. Just use "git merge", as usual. > Well, yes, but in this concrete scenario the ELPA history isn't too > important. But overwriting and losing changes is important. And breaking "git pull" for everyone who follows that branch can be a problem as well. > At least not to me if I could get bidirectional "git > merge"-ability otherwise. "bidirectional merge" and re-initializing the branch are largely unrelated. The one and only thing you need for "bidirectional merge" to work is that both branches have the same content. You can get there via "git merge" just as well. But currently the two branches are not identical. Of course, you can integrate all the elpa.git changes in AUCTeX's upstream which would make the two branches identical, after which we can merge both ways, but I suspect you won't quite like this option (e.g. the GNUmakefile I added to elpa.git means that GNU make ignores the Makefile that should be used for the "normal" build). If you want bidirectional merging, I suggest you look at the diff between the two and see what can be done to resolve those differences. I tried to make the elpa.git differences "as small as possible" on my side (tho I did allow myself some liberties), so I expect most of the changes would need to happen on the auctex.git side, but obviously, some changes would need to happen on the elpa.git side as well and I'd be happy to help iron out the differences. Stefan