On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:56:08 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
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.
What is this, a developer who does not document in detail? shocking! ;)
Thanks Alex. I will try to get new bundles out in around 48hrs. Modulo
the packaging problem in current snapshots and the ICC build failure in
rock.
(http://build.squid-cache.org/job/3.HEAD-amd64-CentOs-icc/lastFailedBuild/console)
Amos
