[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [DEV] New git workflow

From: Simon Thum
Subject: Re: [O] [DEV] New git workflow
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 11:26:18 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120304 Thunderbird/10.0.1

Hi Nick,

I did not mean to imply git is not capable of working that way. It's more a question of what is accepted practice and most importantly, what fits the problem you actually have.

The difference between both approaches, it seems to me, shows when there is a difference between the fix is it would have looked when done right from the first day on, and the fix as it looks when introduced later.

Daggy fixes' mental image is to incrementally fix your release branches (or how you call them) each the in way it needs to be fixed. Cherry-picking usually implies (but does not mandate!) fix on master, then go back. Git's support for the other way round could be better, e.g. by introducing a DAGGY_FIX_HEAD and repo mode so you don't need to alternate cherry-pick, tag, checkout, ...

To me the mental image behind is the main difference, and what is better depends on the fix and the project and what not.

Just my 2c.



On 03/24/2012 08:29 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
Simon Thum<address@hidden>  wrote:

Hi Daniel,

On 03/24/2012 12:05 PM, Daniel Dehennin wrote:
Simon Thum<address@hidden>   writes:
It seems that one problem with cherry-picking is the tracking of what is
in which branch and from where it comes.

I'm not a git neither DVCS guru, but daggyfixes[1][2][3] is saner than

I'm a bit biased as I mainly have git experience but to me it seems
that both cherry-picking and daggy fixes have their strengths and
weaknesses, and I'd rather have them both in all the VCSes but
needless fights over which one is ultimately superior. Git should
probably learn that thing, IMO.

I'm probably missing something but what's there to learn? You check out
the offending commit, make a branch off of it, commit the fix on the
branch, give it a tag (so you can find it easily later on) and then
merge it back anywhere you want. AFAICT, that's all there is to
daggy-fixes and git is perfectly capable of doing that - no?


[1]  http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/DaggyFixes

[2]  http://wiki.monotone.ca/DaggyFixes/


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]