On gio, 2014-01-16 at 16:09 +0100, Jacek Bukarewicz wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on upgrading platform/upstream/vim package to version 7.4. > As far as I understand workflow is as follows: > 1) gbs import <new package tarball> # Upstream branch will be updated > (pristine-tar as well) > 2) rebase commits that were sitting on top of previous upstream branch > to a updated one
Yes, that is the process for pristine-tar projects. > Do I have to rebase _all_ commits that were sitting on top of previous > upstream branch or maybe I can omit the ones that are clearly irrelevant > for newer version? > For example upstream vim is distributed as source tarball (e.g. version > 7.3) + set of patches applied to the extracted sources. I see that > certain commits are just upgrade of set of upstream patches like following: > 9d8637b Update patches > 72cfe4a Update to patch level 826 > > These patches are 7.3-specific and since I'm upgrading to 7.4 I don't > think it makes sense to keep them in history, but maybe there is a > reason why they should be rebased as well (maybe there is such OBS > requirement). IMHO you have to keep only relevant patches. > And another question - what was the reason why we are supposed to rebase > on top of upstream branch instead of doing merge? Wouldn't a history > graph be more clear if we used merge instead of rebase? I had the same remark. That would be nicer but it is dangerous, I've seen many problems coming from automatic merge. Also remember that I have Smack patches for vim. Best regards José > > Regards, > -- José Bollo Intel Opensource Technology Center +33.612.137.110 _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
