On Tuesday 25 March 2014 09:17:29 John Ralls wrote: > On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Geert Janssens <janssens-ge...@telenet.be> wrote: > > If no one beats me to it I'll try to adapt the git wiki page with > > this info in the coming days. > OK. The main change seems to me to be that instead of making a '2.6' > branch next week I'll be making a 'maint' branch. > > Have you experimented at all with what the upstream looks like if you > merge a private branch instead of rebasing it and then push the > result? I *think* the private branch's objects will get pushed > upstream, but the ref/heads entry won't, but I don't know that for > sure. If I'm right, then the other change in the wiki will be to > remove all of the stuff about rebasing instead of merging. > Do you mean there should be no reference to rebasing anymore and to promote merging for everthing ?
I think it still makes sense to rebase local branches right before making them public (which can be either by pushing to a public repository for those that have commit access or by creating a pull request). This somewhat limits the number of multi-parent commits in the public repository. Lots of those tend to make history harder to read or represent. > On the matter of feature branches, I'm tempted to create two public > ones, 'boost' and 'mvc' to provide a long-running context to those > changes and to encourage others to join the fun. A third, > 'core-sql', would come after the engine has been cleaned up enough > for it to be practical. What do you think? > How much overlap is there in the 'boost' and 'mvc' work ? I'm just trying to estimate if they can be done on separate branches. But perhaps you already have a vision on that. Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
