[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal
From: |
Samuel Tardieu |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal |
Date: |
01 Nov 2004 21:33:35 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:
Thomas> Submission branches are (revisioned) changesets against a
Thomas> well-defined mainline. That implies some constraints on how a
Thomas> submission branch is sanely used. If they want something that
Thomas> is 'mainling + some-unmerged-submission-branches' they can
Thomas> constuct such an entity by paying attention to '=merges'.
Tom, you usually pay high attention to design and details. Does this
really look like an efficient process to you? To me, it looks like you
impose a very heavy process to tla developers which discourages
experiments, as forks[1] from tla will have a very hard time keeping
up with already merged submission branches.
Sam
Notes:
[1] I am speaking about personal branches here, with changes not already
submitted, experiments that will get trashed away, and so on
--
Samuel Tardieu -- address@hidden -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Yann Droneaud, 2004/11/01
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Thomas Lord, 2004/11/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Yann Droneaud, 2004/11/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Matthew Dempsky, 2004/11/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Potential flaw in patch-log pruning in proposal, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2004/11/12