On 24/05/2011 05:59, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Simon Marlow:
On 12/05/2011 16:40, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
As I understand it, the moment you share a repo, you can't rebase
any more. I'd be delighted to learn otherwise.
Perhaps pedantry, but this might help clear things up a bit: the
moment you share a *commit*, you can't rebase it any more.
Yes, but I believe, we need to define the meaning of *sharing* in
this context. I think it is fine to rebase a commit that was shared
between a small team of people working on a particular new feature.
in contrast, a commit that was shared with the larger community may
not be rebased anymore. This distinction is important as otherwise
commits bounced between two developers working in close cooperation
could not be rebased anymore, which would not be what we want IMHO.
Given this, you could require that those small teams use their own
git repos (say on GitHub) to share their not-yet-public commits.
However, the GHC community seems to collaborate via c.h.o, so I think
it makes sense to regard some branches (eg, the current ghc-generics
branch) as "private" development branches. Only when commits from
those branches make it into the master or onto stable branches should
they be regarded as being public.
Yes, I'm fine with a group of developers working on the same branch
agreeing to rebase from time to time. Is there an established protocol
for doing this? How do you tell any users who might be following the
branch but aren't involved in development? The safe thing to do seems
to be to start a new branch, but somehow I think that isn't what
normally happens.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
Cvs-ghc@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
