From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4173E429E25 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:05:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JyB4qVzyKAtt for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:05:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from tempo.its.unb.ca (tempo.its.unb.ca [131.202.1.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DC5F431FB6 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:05:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from zancas.localnet (fctnnbsc36w-156034076032.pppoe-dynamic.High-Speed.nb.bellaliant.net [156.34.76.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by tempo.its.unb.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0D95ZFq022090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:52 -0400 Received: from bremner by zancas.localnet with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Rld4p-0005Kz-Fu; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400 From: David Bremner To: Pieter Praet , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: revised patch for gmime init, with test. In-Reply-To: <877h0wnu1l.fsf@zancas.localnet> References: <1325306261-21444-2-git-send-email-kaz.rag@gmail.com> <1325388169-8444-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> <871ur4ltnx.fsf@praet.org> <877h0wnu1l.fsf@zancas.localnet> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+178~gb6b26f4 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400 Message-ID: <874nw0nfa8.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:05:55 -0000 On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:46:46 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:25:38 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:22:46 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > > > with differing hashes), this has the potential of causing confusion > > and/or quite some extra work when debugging using git-bisect(1), so > > I'd like to propose that bugfixes for (to-be-)released code are only > > applied on the 'maint' branch ('release' in the case of Notmuch), > > and then immediately merged back into 'master'. In fact, this would > > preferrably happen after *every* (series of) commit(s) on the 'maint' > > branch, to prevent issues like [1]. > > There is some merit it to this. On the other hand, it makes the history > messier. [1] would have also been prevented by making the patch against > the right branch. I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that at least the release candidates (basically anything tagged on branch release) ought to be merged back to master. Since any series of bugfix patches seems to be cause for a new release candidate, this should avoid the need to have doubly applied patches. I'm less convinced about the need to merge every little doc change and debian packaging change back to master right away. This might be a purely aesthetic objection; I'm not sure if the extra merge commits cause any problems for e.g. bisection. d