[Releasing] ODP: rethinking the branching scheme

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Mon Feb 24 23:30:36 CET 2014

Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 21:23:44, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> you can do the same with more branches. the one downside is that you
> need to keep a merge on top if you want to use both the changes based on
> an older and a newer branch at the same time.
> > Now, I can easily change branches, but it's a task I currently don't have.
> > My point is that there probably are other people out there who benefit
> > from having this branch too.
> most people developing for dev actually do it *on* dev.

People should develop based on stable, if they don't need to features from 
dev. That will keep them from going bald due to hair-tearing for a little 
while longer.

Why bother with the instability introduced by other people when working in 
your corner?

> also, i think it's a pretty safe bet that *no-one* else has a backlog of
> anything near 100 local patches. ;)
> nobody else can track that amount of patches. nobody can even use your
> script (which is the reason why i didn't want it in the current form -
> it's way too plumbing-level to be of any use to mere mortals. heck, even
> you occasionally botch it).

It's not that difficult.

If I can keep 152 patches, why can't people keep 10 or 20?

The script isn't difficult either. The reason I abandoned it was because you 
insisted on my rewriting it to bypass git-gpush. I have better things to do 
than that.

Regardless of how many patches you have, if it's more than 1, you should 
either use git-gp or you should do the workflow that it does. Don't rebase your 
patches if you don't need to rebase.

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the Releasing mailing list