Re: Git strategy for GDP

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, John Mandereau wrote:

> 1) We keep both branches independent, and we'll rebase lilypond/gdp on 
> top of master after stable/2.12 has been derived from master.  This will 
> require reverting in master some translations and possible doc fixes 
> that were/will be committed to both master and lilypond/gdp, just before 
> rebasing.

No need to revert the fixes.  "git rebase" picks up on the fact when 
patches were already applied, and does not try to reapply them.

> 2) We regularly merge master into lilypond/gdp to take advantages of bug 
> fixes in Lily code, and we'll push lilypond/gdp to master after 
> stable/2.12 has been derived from master.
> 
> 
> FWIW, I use the second method for lilypond/translation because 
> translators need to have the latest doc changes, while master should not 
> be affected by 'make web' failures caused by the translations nor 
> contains too unpolished translations that would appear in a release. I'm 
> not sure these reasons are valid for using the same method for GDP, 
> maybe there is a standard Git way of handling this.

I think a good rule of thumb is to use the "merge" strategy whenever you 
have people pulling from you.  We have not (yet) found a good way to cope 
with rebased upstreams when pulling.

But it makes the history a bit more readable when you rebase topic 
branches into "master" instead of merging them.

IMHO the latter only applies, however, if the topic branch will be closed 
after application to "master".

Ciao,
Dscho