On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rap...@iki.fi> wrote: > Which is why I have had problems with NetBSD: bad breaking commits were left > in the CVS tree instead of reverted once users started complaining.
Pointless, FreeBSD != NetBSD. :) > Sometimes commits, say a new feature or rewrite, looks good and passes initial > tests and is merged to master. Later on users find that it causes problems > and tree has other fixes that maintainer would like to release. > > Then reverting the patches is an option which IMO should be used. > > Git history can be a mess, as long as it's history and it's not changed to > look > pretty. I don't see the problem with reverting changes. Thorough testing > usually does not happen until users use the code. I'm not saying revert must not be done. Just saying that the integration branch adds a level for testing and stabilising. Nonetheless bad things still happen: should that happen, let's revert. Anyway I'm not forcing anyone to follow "my rules". I proposed a workflow and no one of the maintainers apparently disliked it. If it doesn't work, deleting a branch is an easy task. > I do use git daily at work and in freetime :) Well, good. ;) -- 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
