On 09/12/2011 07:31 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:46:22 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 09/11/2011 09:22 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >>> IMO its passed the audit for merge. >> >> >> Should I commit a good old patch or do a bzr merge with the 3p2-rock >> branch on lp? >> >> * Patch. Less noise, less structure: No low-quality commit messages and >> no intermediate, later-redone, or merged-from-trunk changes. No good way >> to isolate Rock Store from Core commits. >> >> * Merge. More information, more structure: Detailed commit messages for >> most important changes that led to the final state. Also isolates most >> Rock Store changes from Core changes if one looks beyond the top-level >> merge commit. >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Alex. > > > Up to you. > > I'm inclined to say merge. It compacts the old commit messages anyway in > the changeset and asks for a new message describing the branch overview > so the summary you posted in the audit should be suitable with nothing > actually lost.
Merged as trunk r11730. If this goes alright, this may be a good lesson for all maintaining a feature branch and planning to eventually contribute that feature: write commit messages that are suitable for an eventual inclusion in the Squid official repository! Thank you, Alex.
