Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes?

[Eli Zaretskii]

From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
To: Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden>
CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
In-reply-to: <address@hidden>
        (message from Juanma Barranquero on Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:36:30 +0100)
Subject: Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes?
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
References: <address@hidden> 
        <address@hidden> <address@hidden> 
        <address@hidden> <address@hidden> 
        <address@hidden> <address@hidden>
--text follows this line--
> From: Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:36:30 +0100
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> Personally, and with all due respect, I don't consider this: "There
> are many theoretical objections to rebasing, and I won’t rehash them
> here. There’s general consensus that rebasing is sort of icky." as a
> sort of expert opinion, just biased.

Me neither.  I'm talking about the rest of the reasons, which _are_
described in detail.

> People used to git's rebase find it extremely useful.

I don't know anything about git, so I cannot talk about this.  Just
remember that Stephen pointed to a posting by Linus who very
eloquently explained how rebasing is a bad idea in at least one
situation.

> Weren't I thinking that ChangeLog present problems that should be
> discussed, I wouldn't have brought the issue.

If ChangeLog maintenance is such a big problem, I think we should
resolve it here and now.  Otherwise, it's a tail wagging the dog.

> > ChangeLog files will present a problem for feature branches and
> > quick-fix branches alike.  Though an annoyance, I don't see how it is
> > a problem significant enough to recommend rebase as the main vehicle
> > of routine work, given the downside of rebasing (rewriting history
> > etc.).
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> 
> Yes. Neither of us is "recommending rebase as the main vehicle of
> routine work". I was talking very specifically of a workflow I intend
> to use, but I have no idea how common it'll be for other people; and
> for my use, an interactive rebase would be a perfect option. I
> wouldn't dream of suggest Karl to discuss rebase on BzrForEmacsDevs,
> for example.

ChangeLog's are part of everyone's workflow (unless we decide to stop
using them).  If we think ChangeLog's are causing significant
inconveniences that are not addressed in the recommended workflow, and
if rebasing is the recommended solution for that, then we had better
address these issues now, and by all means mention them on the wiki.

IOW, what annoys Juanma Barranquero, will probably annoy a few more,
so I would not dismiss that as Juanma's private problems whose
solution concerns no one but Juanma ;-)