On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:51:25 -0700, s...@shealevy.com wrote: > >>> <4e5566e6.9050...@shealevy.com> <4e5b97be.5030...@tudelft.nl>) > >>>>1. Would we still need stdenv-updates, or could we just use feature > >>>>branches for the individual update we care about then merge it into > >>> Of course, we will have to name stdenv-updates something new each time > >>> to keep track of what got merged where afterwards. > >>Why would that be necessary? > > > > Given that branches are mere pointers, I don't see how to find out what > > was stdenv-updates before after it has been merged into trunk and > > re-created > > Ah, I see. Yeah, it would be nice if git had information in commits about > which branch the commit was initially performed on. This seems like a > really simple feature, not sure why it doesn't exist.
If you tell git not to do fast-forward merges the history will show where a commit is coming from: git merge --no-ff > >>>>unstable (or probably master in keeping with git lingo)? This would put > >>>>rebuild work onto developers but since users should be using "tested" > >>> It doesn't look like we have large user-to-developer ratio.. > >>No, but as a developer I would have unstable checked out where I do my > >>work, and as a user I would have testing checked out in /etc/nixos or be > >>subscribed to testing as my channel. > > > > An easy way to update to last completed Hydra build would be nice, true. hydra could create tags and push these. Did I understand correctly: we are about to move to git? Having used hg/git and a bit of cvs/svn/darcs I am fully in favor of moving to git. regards florian -- Florian Friesdorf <f...@chaoflow.net> GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083 Jabber/XMPP: f...@chaoflow.net IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC
pgpfzzD0nTjol.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev