On 14/02/13 02:24, David Seikel wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:48:52 +0000 Tom Hacohen > <tom.haco...@samsung.com> wrote: > >> On 13/02/13 10:42, Daniel Willmann wrote: >>> On 13/02/13 00:36, Bruno Dilly wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Willmann >>>> <d.willm...@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Topic branches: >>>>> * In each repository every developer with commit access will be >>>>> able to push/update branches in their own namespace >>>>> (devs/<name>/*). These branches will allow non-fastforward >>>>> updates and no one should expect these to be stable. >>>>> * This is a testing ground for developers where new features can >>>>> be developed, debugged and shared with fellow developers. Ideally >>>>> any new feature would live in its own branch until it matures and >>>>> is merged into master. >>>> >>>> Hey Daniel, >>>> >>>> It's a nice proposal, but what about master branch permissions ? >>>> Every developer would be allowed to push stuff on there (with a >>>> flow similar to svn) ? Or we'll try to establish some kind of >>>> policy about it (maintainers, review, etc) ? >>> >>> As others have already pointed out there seems to be consensus that >>> we don't have enough manpower to work with an integrator workflow >>> (whether or not that's true I don't know). >>> >>> What I want to achieve with the topic branches is that whoever >>> wants to can maintain an integrator-like workflow. You develop your >>> feature in a topic branch, then post a request for review/review >>> and test yourself and if everything looks good you can merge into >>> master. >>> >>> Speaking of merging...is there any preference on merge vs. rebase? >> >> >> Rebase is easier to work with. I think we should rebase whenever >> possible. When not possible, we should try to rebase anyway. Linear >> history is cooler. > > The history is not linear though, coz the topic branch was developed in > parallel with the master branch, so that would be a lie to turn it > into a linear history. Sometimes it's important to know the proper > spaghetti history of branches, especially when lots of people are > contributing their own mess of branchings and merges in their own > style, or lack of style. > > So yes, it's easier to rebase, until something inevitably goes wrong > and you need to sort out when and where it went wrong.
The development's history is not linear, but we can make the master branch's history linear, that's the whole point I'm making. Especially for long time SVN users, but not only. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
