[Kdenlive-devel] Git workflow

[Alberto Villa]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli at iki.fi> wrote:
> Which is why I have had problems with NetBSD: bad breaking commits were left
> in the CVS tree instead of reverted once users started complaining.

Pointless, FreeBSD != NetBSD. :)

> Sometimes commits, say a new feature or rewrite, looks good and passes initial
> tests and is merged to master. Later on users find that it causes problems
> and tree has other fixes that maintainer would like to release.
>
> Then reverting the patches is an option which IMO should be used.
>
> Git history can be a mess, as long as it's history and it's not changed to look
> pretty. I don't see the problem with reverting changes. Thorough testing
> usually does not happen until users use the code.

I'm not saying revert must not be done. Just saying that the
integration branch adds a level for testing and stabilising.
Nonetheless bad things still happen: should that happen, let's revert.

Anyway I'm not forcing anyone to follow "my rules". I proposed a
workflow and no one of the maintainers apparently disliked it. If it
doesn't work, deleting a branch is an easy task.

> I do use git daily at work and in freetime :)

Well, good. ;)
-- 
Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer <avilla at FreeBSD.org>
http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla