Leo Famulari writes: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:08:18PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >> Leo Famulari writes: >> > I agree, wow! Thanks for this. It should help new Schemers to feel more >> > comfortable editing packages. >> > >> > This might be annoying but it should wait until after the core-updates >> > branch is done and merged into the master branch. I want to minimize the >> > number of merge conflicts because they are 1) annoying and 2) relatively >> > opaque when reading the Git history. Marius's suggestion is another good >> > one, and would help with issues like that. >> > >> > But if we were to wait until after core-updates and push it as one >> > commit, I wouldn't mind. It's up to the two of you and everyone else :) >> >> Yeah I guess the squashed patch is okay. If we delay the patches until >> after 'staging' and 'python-updates' as well, no merge will be >> necessary. But it won't be a pretty cherry-pick either, by then. > > True, we should not wait *too* long. I think that doing it after > core-updates and before staging and python-updates could be good > compromise, because those branches touch a relatively small number of > modules. WDYT? I think the least painful path is: * Merge 'core-updates'. * Merge to 'staging'. * * Branch 'python-updates' from staging. * Build staging. Sounds good? :-) >> I don't really have a strong opinion either way. But I'd hate to the one >> resolving potentially 100s of merge conflicts at once ;-) Cherry-picking >> at least restricts the set of conflicts to these changes. > > OTOH, if Kei doesn't have an unsquashed version of this patch, it will > be annoying to split it up :) Yeah.