Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Roadmap Draft (the anticipated part 3)

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 07:11:39PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)
> 
>     > I suggest the following format for a merge request: 
> 
>     > archive-location: (optional) 
> http://bitmovers.com/archives/subvert-thyself
>     > archive-name: address@hidden
>     > contact: (optional) address@hidden
>     > merge-patches: patch-10, patch-15..patch-20
> 
> I don't think so.   I think it makes more sense to require people to
> make branches for submissions so that the merge technique is always
> either replay of all patches on a branch or star merge or something
> like that.
> 
> Those kind of cherry-picking merge requests centralize the labor
> requirements to sort them out -- that won't scale.
> 
> Requiring submitters to make a branch for each request (roughly
> speaking) distributes the labor -- that will scale.

Remember that merge requests are intended to be folded into a
specifically named branch automatically by the bug tracker, such that
they can just be replayed; this gives submissions a certain amount of
flexibility - we can (and should) handle submissions as raw
unidiff. Still, it has to be fully automated on both ends.

If nothing solid comes along soon, I'll make up something that sucks
so badly everybody wants to rewrite it, and use that. It's probably
going to be blocking the vote/queue stuff by next week.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature