Re: [PATCH] [cygwin|mingw]: Add cross-compile support to cwrapper (take 6)

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Charles,

* Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 07:10:25AM CEST:
> On 8/27/2010 3:47 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 08:49:24PM CEST:
> >> However, once I have finished the requested changes above and the
> >> rebasing (plus whatever comes of the four open ***QQQ***uestions), I
> >> might ask for a 12 hour halt on updates to master so I can run those
> >> tests, if that's ok?
> > 
> > Why should you need the halt?  If there are new pushs in the meantime,
> > you just merge origin/master into your master, and push. 
> 
> Doesn't that mess up the "linear" history of commits in the upstream
> master?

Well, yes, if you want to call it "messing up", that is.  From git's
perspective, origin/master and master are not the same branch in your
repository.  Just that most of the time, you use fast-forward or rebase
when getting the changes from the former into the latter.

> After the push, we want master to look like this, right:
> 
> + master (head): chuck's lastest commit
> + the next most recent commit
> + older commits
> + ...

Several projects seem to require it for some notion of cleanliness, but
no, if there is a good reason against that, we don't necessarily want
that.  Your having tested a particular commit is such a good reason,
IMVHO.

> Not this:
> + master (head): merge from chuck's local master
> + more recent master commit
> + some other master commit
> +++ (chuck's local master): chuck's latest commit
> + master commit just before chuck began his final testing
> + older commits

The text in the merge is slightly different:

  master: "merge origin/master"
  recent master commit
  ..
  chuck's latest commit
  master commit just before chuck began his final testing

> Or am I confused about how git handles a merge on a single (tracking)
> branch?

No, you aren't.  Just that I think that's a perfectly acceptable thing
in this situation.

Cheers,
Ralf