On Thursday, February 21, 2013 14:50:26 Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt wrote: > As far as I can gather from the attention this discussion is getting, > having the code drop with amendments in the Android-specific parts of > the code is not unacceptable to anyone but you, while having the history > intact and work load focused is viewed as valuable by the people who are > working on this.
As a data point, I fully agree with everything ossi wrote. I didn't speak up before because I have already given up on several aspects of 'doing things right' in the QtProject. It's just too easy to do things wrong/lazily and then claim it is too late to fix (then repeat the next time lazy is faster than right). Why would you listen to me? What difference could it make? I can't block a merge. You already demonstrated your greater permissions on the repo when you direct-pushed the initial android commit. That surprised me greatly. Having useful and relevant history is important. Having messy history, which does nothing but preserve mistakes people made, style fixes and reverts (which are ordinarily caught at review-time) is not useful. Large commits where the the commit message is useless and the commit so large that nothing of relevance can be seen is also not useful or important history. I tried browsing the branch with gitk --first-parent, and noticed commit ae468e5cadc18189ba6d5e6716a1f3e37e118a7a 'Merge branch 'wip/android' into dev', but it doesn't appear to be on the dev branch. After that --first-parent is showing the wrong stuff. Any idea what's going on there? Was it a merge that you did locally into dev and then pushed as the new android branch? I notice this repeats in all other merges, which breaks --first-parent very effectively. The commit f42766c12b66450d6afe95e1256ec514fbeb28dc 'Compile fix when QT_NO_PRINTDIALOG is defined' obviously belongs on the stable branch, not the android branch. The commit 63ac2d3c32750c498fb10de8803f553c58d1e710 'Export QAbstractFileEngine[XXXX] classes.' is quite surprising and also belongs on the dev branch, not on the android branch. I also had a quick look at the commit 7f4a5e98ab6d146d46e4c40d17de9c725bb7bcef 'Say hello to Android.' Adding the 'assets' url scheme handling is deserving of a commit on its own at least (in dev). I have no idea how much of the branch made sense in necessitas/the branch, but was obsolete by the time of the merge (like https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,46802 ). I can imagine that many of us who try to make use of repo history in the future will end up on that branch, and it won't be much fun, but we won't be able to do anything about it. It disapponts me that we'll have such a crap ball of history so recently in the repo if you merge as planned, but I don't feel that I can stop it. If ossi can and has the patience to try to explain the importance of good history, then more power to him :). Thanks, -- Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
