X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=mail.ud03.udmedia.de; h=
	subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=beta; bh=
	QTvHXmtMMwnetAV27nZGgFNlDlBb2LsPV2i49kEGoBw=; b=eEjBAlk/q8xatnDh
	Y2xA0ajD1Z6m13vFshRsggVxjjrEjpJ1RDojXL+qo9AVFePUaDEwaORzdCDKHxHe
	5t1i2Ci3D6PXRLyofVQoi11aAntdPgkxqsutD3mFgH9QMqVf3plfXOphrKHP78t8
	pQpSy5z/K6aPGNcdwJe0NmGPF8w=
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] community repository
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<55E6DBB1 DOT 5080704 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<20150902214328 DOT GA14589 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
From:	"Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<55E83AA8.9010702@jump-ing.de>
Date:	Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:18:48 +0200
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20150902214328.GA14589@localhost.localdomain>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Am 02.09.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:21:21PM +0200, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> ... 
>> - Once a topic branch is done ( = all commits on master) it gets removed. Duplicate commits are pointless.
> I don't think so. If you use 'git cherry-pick', and it is sometimes
> better than merging/rebasing, you'll have duplicate commits in different
> branches. Then you can do just 'git merge -s ours ...' to not include
> unneeded patches and to have history as is, having at the same time
> necessary branches in master and marking branch as fully merged/closed.
> (I'm just working on Riccardo Lucchese's patch-set and I believe doing
> it this way (and probably using the strategy 'theirs' to continue the
> branch) would be the best option.)

TBH, I consider the concept of merging to be a concept of the past. Following development by rebasing is much cleaner and if each commit on a branch is fine, these commits can be picked to master just as well. Fast-forward merges and fast-forward rebases do the same anyways.

When following master by rebasing it doesn't matter wether you use 'ours' or 'theirs', either way only differences are left in the branch. If no differences remain, the branch becomes empty (and pointless).


> Just cannot remember what LP is standing for (launchpad? why then?).

Yes, 'LP' stands for LaunchPad. Having branches named this way makes it easy to find the related bug report. It's also a wink to developers to not work on 5 bugs on the same branch. "Do one thing and do that right".


> And... Why don't you send your proposal to the devel list as well?

Because there is no developer list?

http://wiki.geda-project.org/geda:mailinglists


Cheers,
Markus

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/

- Raw text -