From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6941 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2014 07:46:41 -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 6926 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jan 2014 07:46:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: ra.se.axis.com Received: from ra.se.axis.com (HELO ra.se.axis.com) (195.60.68.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:46:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ra.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8783F20C2; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from ra.se.axis.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ra.se.axis.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id oC4lTgZQVRJ6; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from boulder.se.axis.com (boulder.se.axis.com [10.0.2.104]) by ra.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C333F20C1; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from boulder.se.axis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6543FB4F; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from seth.se.axis.com (seth.se.axis.com [10.0.2.172]) by boulder.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0AB5EC; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from xmail2.se.axis.com (xmail2.se.axis.com [10.0.5.74]) by seth.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5873F3E06F; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from lnxricardw.se.axis.com (10.88.7.1) by xmail2.se.axis.com (10.0.5.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:46:32 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:46:00 -0000 From: Ricard Wanderlof To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: reject merges on gdb release branches? In-Reply-To: <83bnz4ezst.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: References: <20140122051133.GB4762@adacore.com> <83r480f2r2.fsf@gnu.org> <20140122161520.GF4762@adacore.com> <83bnz4ezst.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00892.txt.bz2 On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Note that a rebase, compared to a merge, is not that much more work, >> and has the nice property of keeping the history linear. > > Rebasing loses information (e.g., if I merged from master several > times during my work). And I don't really see the downsides of > merging to master. 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. Unfortunately it is all too easy to do that by mistake, especially if one doesn't use git on a regular basis. Loosing information about merges from master during a rebase I don't think is too much of an issue. Once the branch has been rebased to master, any merges from master would have occurred in the past anyway. /Ricard -- Ricard Wolf Wanderlöf ricardw(at)axis.com Axis Communications AB, Lund, Sweden www.axis.com Phone +46 46 272 2016 Fax +46 46 13 61 30