Re: Ungrafting

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>
>> When committing a bug fix with a graft, I think it would be a good idea
>> to follow up on some other branch with a commit that makes the same
>> change without a graft.
>>
>> Core-updates was suggested on IRC. This would mean that after each graft
>> commit, master would need to be merged into core-updates, and then the
>> "ungrafting" patch could be applied.
>
> Merging those two will be awkward.  In my experience, the result of git
> automatically merging these two commits is to update the main package
> *and* to graft it.

Good point.

> For this reason, I think it's preferable for the ungrafted commit to
> be on top of the grafted one, i.e. it should remove the graft and
> update the origin package in a single commit.
>
> In practice, this means that after applying the graft to master, master
> should be merged into core-updates before applying the ungrafting commit
> to core-updates.
>
> What do you think?

Sounds like a good workflow, yes.

Regarding builds, it’s really a scheduling problem.  We have periodic
update branches (gnome-updates, python-updates, core-updates), and
Something could tell you whether a change is eligible for one of these
branches, so we could batch related changes together.

Ludo’.