Regarding bugfixes and branches and merging

[Milian Wolff]

Andreas Pakulat, 19.05.2010:
> On 18.05.10 21:34:40, Niko Sams wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 21:14, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > ok, after about 1.5 weeks its pretty obvious that everybody wants his
> > > fixes asap in master and at the same time nobody wants to spend time on
> > > merging other people's fixes into master (which I totally understand).
> > > 
> > > Hence I hereby suggest that everybody who has a bugfix to commit thats
> > > applicable to 1.0 commits it to the 1.0 branch and then does:
> > > git checkout master
> > > git merge 1.0
> > > git push origin master 1.0
> > 
> > hmm... I don't know.
> > that would cause lots of merge commits and that's not the best for
> > master history.
> 
> Well, master would be mostly merge-commits anyway in the long run.
> 
> > If we go the immideately-merge-every-commit route, cherry-picking into
> > 1.0 would be a better choice imho.
> 
> Except that with cherry-picking there's not connection between the
> commits in git and its not possible to find out wether a given fix is in
> 1.0 or not. This is much easier when doing merging as you can easily see
> all branches/tags/parents of the commit and instantly see that its in
> master and 1.0
> 
> > But I still like the current state of not having to care about merging.
> 
> Yeah me too, but apparently others want the fixes instantly in master so
> they have them in their kdevelop build. Frankly I don't really
> understand that its so important given the fixes that were committed so
> far. Its not like any of them stopped you from using kdevelop (IIRC),
> except the fix from Andras yesterday.

No, it's not about that having a working KDevelop. It's about eating your own 
Dogfood. And also: When I fix something, I was nagged by it and _want_ to use 
it. That's why I fixed it after all.

I mean yesterday showed exactly why committing to stable is awkward:

- I implemented some changes in Snippets
- Changed one thing that can be considered a bugfix
- Introduced a few features on top of that
 => the latter I did "blind" assuming my bugfix worked and only after merging 
it finally I could see the "grand scheme".

If I'd done it all in master and only put the odd bugfix into 1.0 it would have 
been much nicer workflow for me.

I mean what if it would have been more than one bugfix I discovered? If I'd 
have merged everytime I could end up with lots of these merge commits...

Anyways, if you don't care about merge commits, I'll probably do that more 
often now.

Bye
-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20100519/bfdebb1d/attachment.sig>