On 03/02/17 10:44, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote: > Josef and me are discussing how to version stuff in CASP vs SP2 when > both branches are getting different subset of changes. Always taking > into account that, when CaaSP is released, the SP2 branch should contain > all the changes and the CASP branch should die. > > Let's take an example (disclaimer, you will probably need to open this > mail in three windows to follow the reasoning and see the differences): > > Jan 1st, both SP2 and CASP are in sync. > Feb 1st, we introduce change A only in CASP > March 1st, we introduce change B only in CASP > April 1st, we introduce change C in SP2 and we merge into CASP > (remember we should merge into CASP EVERY change done to SP2) > May 1st, we introduce change D in CASP and we consider the code in CASP > is ready for entering the SP2 branch (remember the plan is to merge > into SP2 as soon as it's safe). > June 1st, we introduce change E in SP2 > (and, of course, we merge in CASP > July 1st, we introduce change F in CASP > ... > > > The approach suggested by Josef > =============================== > Josef, suggest to rewrite history in the CASP branch to make merging > back to SP2 easier. After all, the CASP branch will die at some point > and its history will not be relevant anymore. > > Status at Jan 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at Feb 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at March 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.10.2 Change B > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at April 1st (after the merge) > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.11.1 CASP changes (A and B) > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at May 1st (after the merge) > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 CASP changes (A and B) > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 CASP changes (A and B) > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at June 1st (after the merge) > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 CASP changes (A and B) > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 CASP changes (A and B) > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at July 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.13.1 Change F > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 CASP changes (A and B) > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 CASP changes (A and B) > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > The approach suggested by me > ============================ > The approach above constantly rewrites the CASP branch changelog to make > the impression that CASP and SP2 has always evolved hand by hand. > I believe the risk to create confusion (or to make-up history too much > and loose information) is bigger than the gain. I propose this: > > Status at Jan 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at Feb 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at March 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.10.2 Change B > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at April 1st (after the merge) > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.11.1 Change C > 3.1.10.2 Change B > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at May 1st (after the merge) > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 Change C > 3.1.10.2 Change B > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.12 Changes A, B and D > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at June 1st (after the merge) > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 Change C > 3.1.10.2 Change B > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Changes A, B and D > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > Status at July 1st > CASP changelog says: > 3.1.13.1 Change F > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Change D > 3.1.11.1 Change C > 3.1.10.2 Change B > 3.1.10.1 Change A > 3.1.10 Blah > > SP2 changelog says: > 3.1.13 Change E > 3.1.12 Changes A, B and D > 3.1.11 Change C > 3.1.10 Blah > > What others think?
I would go for the second approach and avoid rewriting the history. IMHO that approach reflects reality better. Regards, Imo -- Imobach González Sosa YaST team at SUSE LINUX GmbH Blog: https://imobachgs.github.io/ Twitter: @imobachgs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
