Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] microbranches: prism-merge vs multi-merge

[Bug Goo]

Created as bug 132

On Thu May 27 20:37:31 2004, Tom Lord wrote:
> 
> 
> 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/
>     > 
>     > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>