On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:13, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > José Fonseca wrote: >> mesa_7_7_branch and master are becoming quite different, because of all >> the gallium interface changes that have been going into master, so >> merging fixes from mesa_7_7_branch into master is becoming less and less >> of a trivial exercise. >> >> This is aggravated by the fact we are basing a release from the >> mesa_7_7_branch, so it's likely that we'll need to have temporary >> non-invasive bugfixes that should not go into master (which should >> receive instead the proper and potentially invasive fix). >> >> I see a few alternatives here: >> >> a) stop merging mesa_7_7_branch -> master. bugfixes should be applied to >> both branches. preferably by the person that wrote the patch. >> >> b) when applying a non-trivial bugfix to mesa_7_7_branch, the same >> person should do the merge into master, and undo any undesired change, >> or update for interface changes in master. Note however that it's better >> to give a few days between applying to mesa_7_7_branch and merging into >> master, to allow for wider testing, otherwise we'll be merging like >> crazy. >> >> c) do not apply any non trivial bugfix to mesa_7_7_branch anymore, and >> use a separate branch for those. >> >> I don't feel strongly about any of these alternatives for now. We'll >> eventually need to setup a private branch for our release so c) is bound >> to happen anyway. But I also think we can't keep merging mesa_7_7_branch >> into master like this forever -- after so much thought was put into the >> gallium interface changes (feature branches, peer review, etc) but >> whenever a mesa_7_7_branch -> master happens all sort of wrong code is >> merged automatically. > > This was my primary argument *against* our current commit / merge model. > >> The ideal would be to peer-review the merges before committing, but it >> seems difficult to do that with git, while preserving merge history and >> not redoing merges. > > It sounds like we want to copy the Linux kernel model: > > - - Each developer has a local tree. > - - Each developer sends out: > - A patch series > - A pull request > - A list of commit IDs to cherry-pick > - - Based on review comments, the maintainer applies the patches / pulls > the tree.
More bureaucracy. Just what we need in our understaffed world. > > This seems like a fine plan for stable release branches. There are > several tools available to which patches have been sent to a mailing > list but not applied. Using one of those should fix the problem where > patches would not get cherry-picked back to stable branches. The X > server is trying this method, and it seems to be working. Really? I see patches re-re-re-sent and forgotten all the time. Stephane ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
