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 13:39:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 00 dot 1401240833360 dot 24884 at lnxricardw dot se dot axis dot com> <83ha8tersb dot fsf at gnu dot org> <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>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:30:14 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: will.newton@linaro.org, ricard.wanderlof@axis.com,
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> > > If there are conflicts between your branch and the master branch,
> > > and those conflicts are not trivial to resolve, the commits needs
> > > to be reviewed again.
> >
> > Of course. I'm talking about the situation after they are resolved
> > and the result is committed.
>
> So, concretely, you would also send the merge commit as an extra commit
> for review?
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.
> > > > Anyway, we are going in circles. I'm not trying to convince you to
> > > > change your workflow, I'm asking to allow me to keep mine.
> > >
> > > But this is at the cost of everyone else finding it more difficult
> > > afterwards each time they consult the history.
> >
> > What difficulty are you talking about? Can you demonstrate on a real
> > history log that difficulty?
>
> Sure. Attached is a gittk screenshot.
And what exactly are the difficulties with that?
> I'll have to say that this discussion did reinforce my feeling that
> the current rule has more benefits than drawbacks.
Sure, since benefits are yours, while drawbacks are mine ;-)
I'm asking to free me from the tyranny of this rule. You are free to
apply it in your work, but I still see no reasons to force me. You
are used to rebase, so you think a DAG with merges is somehow more
complicated; it isn't.