From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QakCy-0005Qy-Dn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:56:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CE881C008; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yi0-f53.google.com (mail-yi0-f53.google.com [209.85.218.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161441C008 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yic15 with SMTP id 15so2508164yic.40 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:56:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Nyk/VXXjKLhMIBkOE2iaIYCtE0POmSFcg6p/uCHtelU=; b=fnQdEI6e6lErVL2EwSrHRWM7+ZDJi9zVeM2WCx9r4SSYyKv7+1Zb2Gb3RYquPmEUg2 6imeRLdGWd99TXRK5F1R48O6GgCmoKDPQwrtcSVWoMZmICWaB4r3hp8AePza5ZjJYWFt IVej7A+x8nJiqvXLpYnEw2mKvendeq9J2JYtA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=TCVhgshMnk3M+vom/KafVIGJJCbg+HK2I9czjf7q9PkFSGpYc4hUZEeTQD0E7rqxVK uo3XYlKS4niSQfYfWuDFZQ9hMnIgf2brBPQoPkLXJfv+1gH3aSNrd30ZgsAeAChtOZIv Tf3lFW/7MJLF27ntuBp5YY1nXZFBEmnfYMaFU= Received: by 10.151.123.7 with SMTP id a7mr5254731ybn.359.1309074982513; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-76-173.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.76.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r19sm4305148and.0.2011.06.26.00.56.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:56:19 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:56:19 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] master rebase of catalyst 2 Message-ID: <20110626075619.GA7226@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org References: <20110626050301.GD6710@linux1> <4E06D105.6070508@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E06D105.6070508@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 80a2a41ad3a343deabca78fee11eb6fe --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 08:26:13AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > On 06/26/2011 07:03 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > >=20 > > I checked out a local branch from master earlier today and rebased that > > on catalyst_2. Now that branch has over 100 commits, which will be the > > combination of everything on catilyst 2 and current master. > >=20 > > So, how would you suggest we get that branch back out where everyone can > > see it? Do you want me to put it back out on master? It won't be a > > forced update, because I used rebase instead of merge. > >=20 > > The only catch is I don't know how broken that will leave master. >=20 > That sentence^^^ rings at least warning bells in my ears. I don't know > how well you know the code, how easy conflicts were to solve. What may > be important is that we have little (if any) test cases and that we get > little help from Python and Bash to detect breakage for us. If that > transition adds a pile of bugs that we'll find by chance somewhere next > year, that would be a problem. The thing is, I think catalyst 3 is broken anyway; we need to hear from agaffney for sure what the status is. I know that the catalyst_2 branch is what releng is using to do their official builds. > Personally I may have chosen a road moving both branches towards each > other until their diff resolves to zero and than add a fake merge > commit. But that's dry theory - no idea if that would have worked well. > Plus I woulnd't make it alone and not in a few days or hours. =20 I've never been able to figure out how to read merge commits when I use git log, so I try to stay away from them. My usual approach is to make master be where things come down from upstream, then I work on local branches. When I am ready to add something to master, I usually do this: git checkout master git pull # make sure master is up to date git rebase master mybranch # rebases "mybranch" changes on current master git checkout master git merge mybranch # this makes a fast-forward merge at this point git pull --rebase #update master with my changes at the end git push #add my changes to master > Please put them on a new branch (not master) while we're not sure ff the > resulting commits could or should be the future. Hmm, that will mean that all commits we are working on have to go to catalyst_2, the new branch, and master; I think that will make things even more complicated than they already are. I think want to try to find a way to bring the commits on catalyst_2 that are not on master over to master, so I may give it another shot before I do anything. William --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4G5iMACgkQblQW9DDEZThOWgCeICFiS+8oS9GQb7XvqM0owrXn khYAn0H8p/bnDUEDGDXdbZKT+b7cAsi9 =U4Qp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS--