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 1B613429E35 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 OA3U0MDoQ7tk for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (mail-ww0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F2E3431FB6 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by wgbds11 with SMTP id ds11so3527227wgb.2 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.99.232 with SMTP id et8mr2038545wib.8.1326531351220; Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([109.131.75.86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f36sm14123023wbo.10.2012.01.14.00.55.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:55:50 -0800 (PST) From: Pieter Praet To: David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: revised patch for gmime init, with test. In-Reply-To: <874nw0nfa8.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> <874nw0nfa8.fsf@zancas.localnet> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+115~gadd29f6 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <8762ger7f7.fsf@praet.org> 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: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:55:57 -0000 On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:05:35 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > 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. > Thanks! > 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; [...] See my previous reply [1]. > [...] I'm not sure if the extra merge commits > cause any problems for e.g. bisection. > Infrequent merging increases the possibility of bugs due to unforeseen interactions between commits on different branches, which is likely to require one to do a multitude of fake merges (`git merge --no-commit') in order to properly track down the offending commit, so... frequent merging would actually *prevent* issues when bisecting. > d Peace -- Pieter [1] id:"878vlar7ka.fsf@praet.org"