From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4225413824A for ; Sun, 8 May 2016 12:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34D282240E8; Sun, 8 May 2016 12:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 425BA224073 for ; Sun, 8 May 2016 12:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greysprite.dite (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3A5733406DD for ; Sun, 8 May 2016 12:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] On banning merge commits To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20160507235222.GA16750@ultrachro.me> <201605081325.56429.dilfridge@gentoo.org> From: "Anthony G. Basile" Message-ID: <572F2C61.6070103@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 08:09:05 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201605081325.56429.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: e9006dfd-7c48-4905-8dd3-51b488945c56 X-Archives-Hash: efee54e7cbd270f3ae58e8e64b693c7a On 5/8/16 7:25 AM, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: > Am Sonntag, 8. Mai 2016, 01:52:22 schrieb Patrice Clement: >> >> What is the correct course of action? I would very much like it to be >> worded in a document (GLEP and/or Wiki page) so that confusion is avoided >> and we all are on the same page on this topic. >> > > * However... as the past months have shown, when using merges it is much > easier to accidentally mess up the entire tree than using rebases alone. > > * So, in an ideal world we would use merges wisely and sparingly. Correct. I don't support outright banning merge commits, but they should be reviewed carefully, like we do with other big commits to the tree. So maybe proceed as follows: 1. announce to gentoo-dev@ the intention to start a branch intending to merge 2. hack hack hack 3. test the merge for any conflicts etc, 4. announce to the list a date/time to merge 5. if okay, ermge > > * In the real world, we risk less and also lose less if we ban and technically > prevent them. > > * The only alternative would be to come up with criteria for merges and > actually enforce them (meaning, if you mess up the tree more than twice you > lose your push access. Hello QA.). > -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA