On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 09:46:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 23 de abril de 2013 18.20.11, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > I, for one, will not touch any of the rebasing branches, not even to test > > > them. It's too much work to rebase on top of a moving base. > > > > i call that making a mountain out of a molehill. > > $ git fetch > > $ git rebase --onto @{u} HEAD~4 > > Would you call me experienced with Git? > > Well, I have never successfully used git rebase --onto without reading the > man > page first and paying attention to the ASCII Art graphs. > that's unfortunate. :P
> Besides, that's unwieldy. I don't carry a handful of commits in my branches. > I > carry somewhere from 60 to 120. So, no, moving target == off-limits for me. > this is an entirely constructed example. you are not going to have 100 changes on top of a wip branch which is too quickly moving to adhere to the mainline submission policies. and, ehm, you are the only person within qt-project who has 100 pending changes in a single branch. seriously. > > > Especially if they're bypassing the CI, they could and should just use > > > a repository elsewhere. When the branch is ready, it will be submitted > > > as individual patches to be reviewed by the regular reviewers, maybe > > > starting the work branch. > > > > it's unreasonable to ban everything that does not comply with the > > standard workflow for mainline branches. > > Yes, it is. Why do they need to use the mainline repositories if they are not > going to adhere to the policies that are in place? > > No, really, why do those branches need to be in the main repositories? > > I'll give one answer, out of past discussion, and just to prove that yes I am > trying to understand both sides: > > it is nice to be there because other people sometimes see the commits coming > in and will comment on them. > > > With that in mind, I change my proposal and I will say that rebasing branches > are acceptable in the mainline repositories, provided they are clearly > marked. > It's minimal impact and it solves the problem of surprise by selecting the > people who may use that branch. > as far as i can see, the admin who created the winrt branch (not me) failed to comply with the wip/ policy. i'm sure adding more naming policies will improve that situation ... not. > > and if you did, you'd need to ban playground repos as well (where > > typically non-approvers can approve changes). > > By definition, a playground repository is not a mainline repository. > but it lives on our gerrit, so it's "official". i don't see a difference between a non-mainline branch of an "accepted" repository and the branches of a playground repository. there is no such thing as a mainline _repository_ - on the server, we don't clone: we branch. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development