Hi, On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Felipe Contreras <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Elijah Newren <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Felipe Contreras >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On the other hand 'gnome-2-0' is not pointing to any release, there >>> where commits after the last release. So my question here is: who >>> would care about those commits? They were done 6 years ago and nobody >>> made a tag that contains them. The arguments I've heard apply to the >>> stable releases (GEDIT_2_0_5), if somebody wants to create a GNOME 2.0 >>> build, or make GEDIT_2_0_6 release, they'll probably go for the latest >>> code that was actually released and used. >> >> I disagree; I think they'd check out the branch and use it; >> particularly since that has been the practice for a number of years >> now. But that's only one side of the issue, and the less interesting >> one at that... > > *sigh* > > Do this command: > $git checkout GEDIT_2_0_5 > > Then do 'git branch'. What do you see? "(no branch)" Of course, > completely unintuitive, how contributors are expected to create a > 2.0.6 release under such hard conditions! > > Well, now do this command: > $git checkout origin/gnome-2-0 > > What does 'git branch' show this time? "(no branch)" Ah, much better! > Now contributors will be on their element. > > Creating a local branch is a step that you need to do on both cases, > there's no difference whatsoever.
That's kind of orthogonal to the point I was making and responding to. I was responding to your two comments, "who would care about those commits" and "if somebody wants to create a GNOME 2.0 build, or make GEDIT_2_0_6 release, they'll probably go for the latest code that was actually released and used." Using the GEDIT_2_0_5 tag vs. the origin/gnome-2-0 branch give you different answers, since the branch may have advanced past the tag; so there's a decision to be made. You have consistently claimed that those commits on the branch were useless and no one would even look at them, and I was pointing out historical precedent that was in conflict with this assumption of yours. > I express concern because when you use git properly branches are a > central part of development (unlike other SCMs) therefore you *see* > these branches all the time, which is annoying. I agree. > I understand the need for such branches like 'gnome-2-20'. It's > unlikely, but some one might make a release out of that. But > 'gnome-2-0'? Maybe I missed your switch, but I thought you had been advocating 'master' and 'devel' and getting rid of 'gnome-2-x' branches until today. So I was responding to that. I agree it'd be nice to move known-to-be-unused branches to some archival or legacy area (refs/archive/*, refs/legacy/*?). You just have to be reasonably certain they are really unused (no enterprise distro could possibly be using them anymore, etc.). I'm guessing there's very few gnome-2-x branches that are ready for archiving by now. > Do you seriously think because git.git is maintained by Junio nobody > else has a clone of that repo? Of course not! Every git developer had > a clone, and they all saw the maint branches. Some might have have > work on top of those branches. > > Why didn't the world fell to pieces when Junio removed those branches? > git is *distributed* if you have local main-1.6.0 branch with 4 > commits and Junio removes the branch what happens? Nothing, you only > see that "origin/main-1.6.0" was removed, big deal. Your local > main-1.6.0 remains intact. I must have done a really poor job communicating; sorry about that. You had been advocating only having 'master' and 'stable' branches. I was pointing out that even git.git went further than that and had the equivalent of stable-x.y branches, and that I thought we would need those too. I figured you'd say, "yes, but they have since been deleted in git.git", and so I proceeded to point out why I think gnome is different and would need to keep several of those stable-x.y branches around for a long time and not delete them. > Yes, but what about branches like CORBA_ENABLED, GEDIT_VIEW, GNOME_MDI. Oh, I'm a big fan of archiving old branches like these; that sounds great. I just think the gnome-2-x branches will need to be around longer (e.g. rhel4 is still supported and ships with gnome 2.8), but it sounds like you're now in agreement with that. I hope this email is a bit clearer than my last; sorry about that. Elijah _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
