From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 372 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2014 11:11:49 -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 359 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jan 2014 11:11:48 -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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout23.012.net.il Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:11:47 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MZW00E00K4ZE000@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:11:45 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MZW00EH7KFK8AA0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:11:44 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:11:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches? In-reply-to: <20140124105807.GM4762@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: will.newton@linaro.org, ricard.wanderlof@axis.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <837g9peirg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83wqhqekpp.fsf@gnu.org> <83ha8tersb.fsf@gnu.org> <20140124080703.GL4762@adacore.com> <83eh3xep43.fsf@gnu.org> <83a9eleksf.fsf@gnu.org> <838uu5eju2.fsf@gnu.org> <20140124105807.GM4762@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00932.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:58:07 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Will Newton , ricard.wanderlof@axis.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > It is helpful to anyone who wishes to understand the sequence of > > events that led to a certain line being what it is. Merges are in > > important part of that. E.g., suppose that a merge produced a > > conflict whose resolution mistakenly introduced a bug. If you > > eliminate the merge, you will be unable to understand the reasons for > > the buggy change, at least not easily. > > 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. > > 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?