[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: unionmount branches
Re: unionmount branches
Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:13:01 +0200
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 01:28:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 04:27:12PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> > > 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.
> Don't forget to remove the old master-unionmount branch afterwards: ``git
> push savannah :master-unionmount''.
Thank you :-) I've almost forgotten about this detail.
> > 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.
> Let me explain: the idea indeed was to construct a history line, but in
> an easily, directly-visible way, which I explain on
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/rules/source_repositories.html>. Of
> course you're correct that all this information is contained in the Git
> repository itself, but for getting the big picture
> (master-viengoos-on-bare-metal is based on master-viengoos is based on
> master) I envisioned it to be helpful, especially so in repositories that
> contain a number of non-history-sharing branches (like the incubator).
> However, if you, the other contributors, disagree that this is useful,
> then I surely won't object to dropping that scheme.
Hm, I must confess I haven't read the source_repositories page
sufficiently attentively to notice the description of the ``master-''
convention :-( Now that I've finally understood the meaning of this
prefix, I am inclined to doubt that my previous doubting opinion was
correct :-) Nevertheless, I think I can foresee antrik saying that one
can easily see the relationship between branches using something like
git-show-branch and that keeping bits of this information in the
branch names is mere redundancy :-)