From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9194 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2014 08:07:53 -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 9184 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jan 2014 08:07:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-we0-f170.google.com Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f170.google.com) (74.125.82.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:07:51 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u57so2318190wes.15 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:07:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.6.8 with SMTP id w8mr9914873wjw.16.1390550868690; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.17.104 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:07:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83ha8tersb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20140122051133.GB4762@adacore.com> <83r480f2r2.fsf@gnu.org> <20140122161520.GF4762@adacore.com> <83bnz4ezst.fsf@gnu.org> <83wqhqekpp.fsf@gnu.org> <83ha8tersb.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches? From: Doug Evans To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Ricard Wanderlof , brobecker@adacore.com, "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00918.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:36:25 +0100 >> From: Ricard Wanderlof >> CC: "brobecker@adacore.com" , >> "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" >> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> >> >> >> >> I think it's not the merging per se that is a problem, only if it is done >> >> incorrectly, i.e. merging from a branch that was was broken off from >> >> master a long time ago, which brings in a lot of unwanted stuff. >> > >> > There's any number of ways one can make a mistake and screw up master. >> > That cannot be the reason for forcing a particular workflow on >> > everyone, certainly not before any such problems actually happened >> > even once. >> > >> > And I don't understand your fear of unwanted stuff from a divergent >> > branch: what exactly is special about this situation? Surely, >> > examining the diffs before committing and pushing would show what is >> > about to land on master, so where's the danger that doesn't exist in >> > any other commit? >> >> I'm not trying to advocate one or the other, rather just trying to >> understand the reasoning behind the decision. > > So am I. And I still don't understand that reasoning. > > Let me turn the table and ask: are there any objections to removing > this restriction on master, and leaving it only on the branch? If > there are no objections, can we please remove the restriction? fwiw, for now at least this git newbie likes the restriction on master and release branches.