Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes?

[Óscar Fuentes]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> If anyone thinks that rebase it the solution for his problem, please
>> ask here first.
>
> So what problem was it in this case, for which rebase is a solution?

It was considered as a hack for editing the ChangeLog dates of old local
commits before sending them upstream.

> Is it the case of a number of small unrelated changes that somehow
> accumulated in the local branch?

Yes, it is about sending upstream a series of small changes that you
accumulated on a branch (because you had no net access of because
commits to upstream were temporarily restricted for whatever reason.)

There are two problems with this: first, merging the ChangeLog entries
correctly (mainly updating dates) and second, not having to merge and
commit all those changes one by one.

If you agree that the quickfixes->merge-to-trunk->commit workflow is the
right thing, you don't need rebase here: you have to merge and commit to
upstream each change individually and you can edit the ChangeLog at that
point.

If you think that having to merge a small change is an unnecessary
burden and prefer to commit directly to upstream, rebase is the solution
but the ChangeLog is on the way forcing you to resort to a hack for
editing it. If it no were ChangeLog, sending upstream that series of
small changes would need just two commands (rebase & push).

The general issue here is the impact the ChangeLog has on off-line
working, including into the concept of off-line feature branches that
live for more than a day.

[snip]

-- 
Óscar