From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19875 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2014 11:39:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19863 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jan 2014 11:39:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout29.012.net.il Received: from mtaout29.012.net.il (HELO mtaout29.012.net.il) (80.179.55.185) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:39:09 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout29.012.net.il by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MZW00500LG6JB00@mtaout29.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:40:25 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MZW00N6TLRDPA80@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:40:25 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:39:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches? In-reply-to: <20140124113014.GN4762@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: will.newton@linaro.org, ricard.wanderlof@axis.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <8361p9ehht.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ha8tersb.fsf@gnu.org> <20140124080703.GL4762@adacore.com> <83eh3xep43.fsf@gnu.org> <83a9eleksf.fsf@gnu.org> <838uu5eju2.fsf@gnu.org> <20140124105807.GM4762@adacore.com> <837g9peirg.fsf@gnu.org> <20140124113014.GN4762@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00934.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:30:14 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: will.newton@linaro.org, ricard.wanderlof@axis.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > If there are conflicts between your branch and the master branch, > > > and those conflicts are not trivial to resolve, the commits needs > > > to be reviewed again. > > > > Of course. I'm talking about the situation after they are resolved > > and the result is committed. > > So, concretely, you would also send the merge commit as an extra commit > for review? I'm not talking about review: for review we send and receive diffs, not commits with their metadata. I'm talking about the history DAG after the commit and the push. And, as you well know, a merge that causes conflicts requires a commit after resolving those conflicts. > > > > Anyway, we are going in circles. I'm not trying to convince you to > > > > change your workflow, I'm asking to allow me to keep mine. > > > > > > But this is at the cost of everyone else finding it more difficult > > > afterwards each time they consult the history. > > > > What difficulty are you talking about? Can you demonstrate on a real > > history log that difficulty? > > Sure. Attached is a gittk screenshot. And what exactly are the difficulties with that? > I'll have to say that this discussion did reinforce my feeling that > the current rule has more benefits than drawbacks. Sure, since benefits are yours, while drawbacks are mine ;-) I'm asking to free me from the tyranny of this rule. You are free to apply it in your work, but I still see no reasons to force me. You are used to rebase, so you think a DAG with merges is somehow more complicated; it isn't.