This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: reject merges on gdb release branches?
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: will dot newton at linaro dot org, ricard dot wanderlof at axis dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:27:40 +0200
- Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140124080703 dot GL4762 at adacore dot com> <83eh3xep43 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CANu=DmhEyNvF3au1r+zyrZ2B368iA8PF3hh3cWMM2Hhwa1mpYw at mail dot gmail dot com> <83a9eleksf dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CANu=Dmh39cA462XRa=+254n3CwZ5M3peAQBhN-bhV6A6OuXuzQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <838uu5eju2 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140124105807 dot GM4762 at adacore dot com> <837g9peirg dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140124113014 dot GN4762 at adacore dot com> <8361p9ehht dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140124115548 dot GO4762 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
[Resending because the list rejected the attachment.]
> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:55:48 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: will.newton@linaro.org, ricard.wanderlof@axis.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> > I'm not talking about review: for review we send and receive diffs,
> > not commits with their metadata. I'm talking about the history DAG
> > after the commit and the push. And, as you well know, a merge that
> > causes conflicts requires a commit after resolving those conflicts.
>
> I don't understand what you mean, anymore.
Sorry about that. What I meant to say was that the merge vs rebase
issue is not relevant to patch review.
> > > Sure. Attached is a gittk screenshot.
> >
> > And what exactly are the difficulties with that?
>
> I can guaranty you that most people will find this non-linear history
> at best hard to follow, at worst plain confusing. I consider myself
> relatively well versed in git, and yet I consider this type of history
> to be fairly hard to follow. While you do not seem to have trouble
> with it, you have to think about the others.
In Emacs development, we don't have any trouble with even more
complicated DAG structures. See the attached for a (relatively
simple) example.
> We'll have to agree to disagree, then (and I use merges routinely,
> so I think I also have a good handle on them). The problem I have
> with your request is that we're trading a one-off operation (merge
> vs rebase) against a history that is necessarily more complicated.
> And most, if not all people who expressed an opinion, confirmed that.
Why does this issue have to be decided by a majority?