[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] microbranches: prism-merge vs multi-merge
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] microbranches: prism-merge vs multi-merge |
Date: |
Thu, 27 May 2004 11:42:37 -0700 (PDT) |
Another use for the idea of "forking microbranches to make new
microbranches" is catching up after your upstream moves to a
new branch.
> X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
> From: address@hidden (Julian T. J. Midgley)
> Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 10:25:22 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Complaints-To: address@hidden
> X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hanjague.menavaur.org
> X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
> Originator: address@hidden (Julian T. J. Midgley)
> X-BeenThere: address@hidden
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
> Precedence: list
> List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish
<gnu-arch-users.gnu.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users>,
> <mailto:address@hidden>
> List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/gnu-arch-users>
> List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
> List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
> List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users>,
> <mailto:address@hidden>
> Sender: address@hidden
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on mail.42inc.com
> X-Spam-DCC: :
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=4.5 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
> version=2.63
> X-42email-MailScanner-Information: Please contact
http://www.42inc.com/support.html for more information.
> X-42email-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> X-UIDL: 87ad0523d268cf5ceaa6f98ad84d558b
>
>
> In article <address@hidden>,
> Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> >Florian Weimer <address@hidden> writes:
> >> Is there some fix to make the branches "micro" again? If development
> >> continues for some time, they wil accumulate patches from the upstream
> >> branch, which means that branches aren't really *that* cheap.
> >
> >The `obvious' way would be to re-tag from the upstream branch instead of
> >merging from it, but I've always been afraid to do this, as you always
> >hear about problems with mixed commit/tag branches.
>
> Or to have a tool for forking a new set of microbranches from the
> latest revision of the devel branch (after the upstream merge) and
> replay or star-merge the changes from the old microbranches into the
> new ones.
>
> This exchanges microbranch-bloat for branch proliferation, which seems
> a little cleaner.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Julian T. J. Midgley http://www.xenoclast.org/
> Cambridge, England.
> PGP: BCC7863F FP: 52D9 1750 5721 7E58 C9E1 A7D5 3027 2F2E BCC7 863F
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>
>
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] microbranches: prism-merge vs multi-merge, Aaron Bentley, 2004/05/29