From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2248 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2014 16:23:48 -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 2228 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2014 16:23:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-oa0-f48.google.com Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-oa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.219.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:23:45 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l6so696967oag.7 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:23:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.153.226 with SMTP id vj2mr2105696obb.26.1390407823429; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.105.174 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:23:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140122161520.GF4762@adacore.com> References: <20140122051133.GB4762@adacore.com> <83r480f2r2.fsf@gnu.org> <20140122161520.GF4762@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches? From: "H.J. Lu" To: Joel Brobecker , Binutils Cc: Eli Zaretskii , GDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00867.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Doesn't that mean you are forcing everybody to rebase before >> committing from feature branches? If so, that sounds drastic, and >> should have very good reasons. (Apologies if this was already >> discussed and decided, but in that case I'd appreciate a pointer.) > > IIUC, you're asking a general question: Is it OK to do a merge of > a feature branch onto another, and then push that branch? > > The currently situation, as discussed during the transition to git, > was that this is not allowed for the "master" branch. Note that > a rebase, compared to a merge, is not that much more work, and has > the nice property of keeping the history linear. I've been managing > patch series of 20+ patches, with regular rebases, without problems. > It's something you do anyway in order to submit the patches, so > I don't think this is an issue in practice. > > This proposal is to extend this restriction to all GDB release branches, > for the reasons detailed in my reply to Yao. Basically, this is to > avoid mistakes resulting us in merging more than what you intended. > Add binutils mailing list. I think it is a good idea and it should be extended to all binutils release branches. Thanks for doing this. -- H.J.