On 01/16/2013 10:48 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2013-01-16 10:41, Philippe Gerum wrote:
On 01/16/2013 09:44 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2013-01-16 09:02, Jan Kiszka wrote:
At the same time, upstream should not pull or pick in
a way that makes life harder for downstream.
Philippe, in the future, please keep your public tree up-to-date,
ideally at a daily base. I'm seeing commits there that were done locally
more than a week ago. Only publishing your state will avoid the problems
you faced with integrating our changes.
No. If I don't publish, there must be a reason.
This approach doesn't work very well - to state it carefully. Push you
stuff at least into a public "next" branch, one that may be rebased /
reordered without warning. That allows us to prepare for what is under
test, maybe pick up arch-specific changes into the subsystem queues. And
don't complain about conflict if you cherry-pick subsystem patches
without dropping a note to the author - or was Gilles aware of your
private queue?
You are off base, this has nothing to do with random cherry picking, or
any private queue I would maintain: none of these have existed. Besides,
it's not about integrating my changes in the reference tree - I had
almost none recently - but Gilles', and many of them came from other
sources he merged into his local queue.
Please, we have been working reasonably successfully with our current
workflow for the past ten years now, so we had some time to understand -
even if our very limited brainpower made this quite a challenge - the
basics of distributed development.
What happened is a misunderstanding between Gilles and myself on the
presence of a pending pull request, nothing more, which eventually led
to an out-of-sync pulling on my end. Since this happened when several
people were pushing stuff to Gilles, this triggered my warning to the
list, so that everyone involved may know that things stopped going as
smoothly as usual. Rest assured that under normal circumstances, Gilles
is very well aware of what I'm working on daily, and conversely. I
understand your willingness to work the right way now that you recently
committed to maintaining the x86 branch, and this is appreciated.
On a more general note, the situation changed because we have been
receiving more patches from more authors in the last weeks than we used
to get, and conflicts follow the same trend. So yes, for this reason I'm
going to open a 'next' branch or something alike to be periodically
merged to the reference core branch as a fast forward.
--
Philippe.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
