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

Reply via email to