On May 13, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Mike Alexander <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 13, 2014, at 11:47 AM, John Ralls <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yeah, it would be silly to merge after every commit. One strategy might be >> to frequently merge from master and then revert the merge if there are no >> conflicts. ISTM that relying on rerere in the face of ongoing development on >> both branches risks replaying what was the right answer with last week's >> code but isn't with this week's, so if there are conflicts resolved in the >> merge it stays so that new code builds on the resolved result rather than >> continuing to diverge. >> >> I think merges into master should happen for every module (e.g. gncguid, >> gncdate) so that conflicts coming into master are limited to a single >> subject. That should make it a bit easier for the person doing the merge to >> keep track of which way to resolve the conflicts. >> >> That will still produce a ladder appearance in gitk and friends. I don't >> find that objectionable, but apparently some people do. > > I agree that merging master into topic branches frequently is a good idea. I > have a long running branch where I do all my real work and merge master into > it often. This seems to work well. I've also created more short lived topic > branches and used them like this. > > In the other direction, I think that once a topic branch is merged to master > it should be abandoned (unless it is used to fix bugs in the stuff that was > just merged). A new topic branch should be created for subsequent changes, > even if they are related to the changes that were just merged (such as the > same changes to a different part of the code). I'm not sure if this is what > you're suggesting or not, but it would seem to avoid a ladder appearance (if > I know what you mean by that). It’s not. I see no reason to abandon a branch just because it’s merged into master, and if you really have a long-running branch where you do all of your work, neither do you. It won’t avoid the ladder look, either. There will just be a bunch of shortish branches instead of one long one. The matter of abandoned branches reminds me that I haven’t yet cleared out all of the old branches that I merged into ‘archive’. Regards, John Ralls _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
