On Thursday 10 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-10 11:02: > > On Tuesday 08 November 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > >> [dropping automake@] > >> > >> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-11-04 11:37: > >> > >>>> 2. Create a new public branch `msvc-for-1.11', based off of > >>>> `msvc'. > >>>> > >>> I've instead based `msvc-for-1.11' on a merge of `branch-1.11' > >>> and `msvc'. > >> > >> The history is a maze. It's very hard to follow what's going on. > >> > > For what concerns the 1.11.2 release, you shoud only be interested in > > the `maint' and `msvc-for-1.11' branches (whose roles I hope are > > obvious). > > I'm not concerned with the branch *names*, I'm worried about the > numerous merges back and forth and what it will do the minds of > those trying to dig in the commit graph a couple of years from > now trying to understand how some bug percolated through it. Maybe > it's not so bad, but there are a lot of merges going on. > > > In the long term, having a README document or so that explains what the > > current branches are meant to accomplish and how they're organized would > > probably be worthwhile, and could avoid a lot of confusion. > > > > In the meantime, removing some already-merged and now inactive branches > > (e.g., `prove' and `remove-deansification') might simplify the situation > > a bit. Will do shortly. > > This is not at all my concern. > OK. But I think removing those branches is a good move regardless (they have always be thought as temporary topic branches, so no need to keep them around now that they've been happily merged).
> >> Is it > >> really desired to merge back maint and master into the work branches > >> with such extreme frenzy? > >> > > I'd say yes, to avoid potential future bigger conflicts when merging. > > > > Such conflicts are bound to be more difficult to resolve, firstly > > because they will be bigger, and secondly (and most importantly) > > because the will involve much more changes done in a wider temporal > > interval -- changes whose details or exact reason we might even have > > forgotten in the meantime! > > Just have a look at the attached picture (if the ml doesn't eat it) and > try to convince me that you like what you see. > I don't; that's why I only visulize a set of *related* branches at once, not all of them at the same time (for example, visualizing `master' and `maint' and `testsuite-work' at the same time is not confusing (since `maint' is merged into `master', which is merged into `testsuite-work'). OTOH, there is no clear relationship between `maint' and `branch-1.11' (except for the fact that they share maint as a common "baseline"), so trying to visulize them at once is bound to end in a mess; and notice that this happened also *before* I started to introduce my umpteenth topic branches. > That nest will not go away by removing branches. > While I don't consider the current situation as a problem, I agree it is suboptimal in some aspects; so, if you have suggestions about how it could be improved, I'm all ears :-) Thanks, Stefano
