lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: duplicate commits in git (was: 2.13.18 might not contain everything


From: Francisco Vila
Subject: Re: duplicate commits in git (was: 2.13.18 might not contain everything)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:58:30 +0200

2010/4/17 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 06:01:30PM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
>> 2010/4/17 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
>> > We had a week without doc work due to constantly-changing
>> > repositories.  If you weren't active during that week, then you
>> > wouldn't have noticed it.
>>
>> I can not agree; everyone had to start a fresh repo, having been active or 
>> not.
>
> Yes, but some people had to start 3 or 4 fresh repo, and there was
> confusion about whether patches applies to repo #2 would appear in
> repo #3 or #4, etc.  When repo #3 appeared without material that
> I'd pushed for a new doc committer who worked on repo #2, I told
> the doc editors to take a holiday for a week because it was too
> confusing and disheartening for contributors new to git.

That was a sad coincidence in time. Not the current problem.

>> You are too much concerned about stats these days, IMO. Judge by
>> yourself, http://paconet.org/lilypond-statistics/ [updated]
>
> I don't care about stats.  I care about the morale of new
> contributors.  I care about recruiting moderate-to-advanced users
> to help explain concepts to doc editors.  The whole git repo
> switching occurred two days after I asked for volunteers to help
> with the docs.  But then, after a few days, I had to tell them all
> to wait a week.

That era is gone and the new repo is fine IMO. Let's go back to work.

> People like to see immediate effect of their aid.  They didn't get
> that.  Scarce wonder that nothing ended up happening from that
> request.  And to avoid being the boy that cried wolf, I'll have to
> wait a month before making the same request again.

> So if the rebase is going to cause another round of git
> repositories, I'd like it done sooner rather than later.  If not,
> then there's no problem.

The exact consequences of my rebase has been a block of 13 repeated
commits; those are NOT applied twice as merge is intelligent enough.
So the overall ugliness of history is certainly a bit higher now than
before, but that's all. Honestly I don't think it does worth any
history rewrite. Upstream could confirm or deny.

Sorry again.
-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com




reply via email to

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