Re: New branch for Fedora 11 merges

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> IMO archer-swagiaal-using-directive and archer-keiths-expr-cumulative are not
> based one on the other and the functionality of each of the branches can be
> fully exploited without the code of the other branch.  Or am I wrong?

The big concern that I have about using separate branches is that both 
Sami and I are touching the same parts of GDB (and not superficially, 
either), and we may introduce patches on separate branches which may 
interfere with each other later when merged.

I've already run into this with my two expressions-related branches, and 
I believe that Sami has also run into this when he merged into the 
expr-cumulative branch from his own branch. I foresaw this happening, 
and that's why I moved to committing all my expressions work into a 
single, unified branch in the last couple of weeks.

Yes, it will be a huge amount of work to extract small, digestible 
pieces for submitting upstream. Then again, when it comes to upstream 
GDB, everything is a huge amount of work anyway. It's part of the price 
we pay for the decisions we've made.

> Also please if you get some parts of the branch (as happened multiple times
> for archer-tromey-python) accepted for FSF GDB please git-revert (or just
> unpatch/commit) that part and freshly merge it with origin/master (after its
> update from gdb/master).

That's a good point: I'd never have thought of that. Once again, this is 
an artifact of our development model, which appears (to me) to have its 
problems. [Hint: Are we going to have to allocate resources for one 
person to continually merge "features/fixes" (branches) into a "release 
branch"?]

Keith