[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: unionmount branches

From: Sergiu Ivanov
Subject: Re: unionmount branches
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:27:12 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
> > wrote:
> > > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probably a
> > > good idea, it should contain only the "approved" patches; while
> > > those still in development would better be placed in true topic
> > > branches...
> > 
> > OK.  I'll stick to this in the future.  Shall I move the yet
> > not-completely-approved patches away from master-unionmount into
> > corresponding topic branches?
> I think so. However, it's probably better not to change the existing
> master-unionmount branch, but rather drop it alltogether and create a
> new one with a different name once you actually start adding the
> approved patches. Otherwise, people who already checked out the original
> branch will get in trouble...

OK, I'll do that.
> (Also, I still don't get the point of the "master-" prefix. This is not
> CVS, where we needed to remember where the branch comes from, as it was
> hard to figure it out from history; and it was crucial to know, because
> merging had to be handled in a strictly controlled manner to work at
> all...)

Frankly speaking, I'm generally inclined to doubt the usefulness of
this prefix, too.  This is quite fortunate, since I can create a new
branch ``unionmount'', thus both achieving a better name and creating
a new branch of approved patches only.


reply via email to

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