Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:23:44, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: > you can do the same with more branches. the one downside is that you > need to keep a merge on top if you want to use both the changes based on > an older and a newer branch at the same time. > > > Now, I can easily change branches, but it's a task I currently don't have. > > My point is that there probably are other people out there who benefit > > from having this branch too. > > most people developing for dev actually do it *on* dev.
People should develop based on stable, if they don't need to features from dev. That will keep them from going bald due to hair-tearing for a little while longer. Why bother with the instability introduced by other people when working in your corner? > also, i think it's a pretty safe bet that *no-one* else has a backlog of > anything near 100 local patches. ;) > nobody else can track that amount of patches. nobody can even use your > script (which is the reason why i didn't want it in the current form - > it's way too plumbing-level to be of any use to mere mortals. heck, even > you occasionally botch it). It's not that difficult. If I can keep 152 patches, why can't people keep 10 or 20? The script isn't difficult either. The reason I abandoned it was because you insisted on my rewriting it to bypass git-gpush. I have better things to do than that. Regardless of how many patches you have, if it's more than 1, you should either use git-gp or you should do the workflow that it does. Don't rebase your patches if you don't need to rebase. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
