On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rap...@iki.fi> wrote: >> Reverting sets of commits is definitely not a solution. > > Yes it is. If a set of commits breaks other functionality, those patches > should either be fixed or reverted. That's how Linux kernel is maintained.
This is not a good point to discuss with a FreeBSD developer. Just kidding. ;) > There's nothing wrong in reverting a set of patches, asking the author to fix > them, and applying a fixed version later on. > > This gives the tree maintainer some options to keep the master branch in > releasable state. Which is what the integration branch is made for. Reverting means you'll have less occasions to test new features/fixes; it means you'll have to revert the whole set of commits instead of just finding what's wrong and fix it. And leads to Git history mess. -- Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer <avi...@freebsd.org> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 _______________________________________________ Kdenlive-devel mailing list Kdenlive-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kdenlive-devel
