On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:02:44 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Another (cleaner) option is to just branch xserver-1.12-branch from >> ed8f3c4bd17bddf1369d050ea8e63b9451d887ce (the commit before ajax's >> changes landed) and let master chug along towards 1.13. > > We've not done this in the past, rather we've let people hold on to > their patches after the end of the merge window. I do like the notion of > merging not-for-1.12 patches somewhere rather than let them live > unmerged for months. > > I can easily do that. Now, the only question is one of names. I'm not > sure I like changing where the release is done; keeping it on master > makes things straightforward (at least for me, and perhaps for > others?). The pending changes could be in a 'next' branch. Each time I > merged patches to master I could either: > > a) merge master->next > > b) rebase next on top of master > > a) will result in a ton of merge commits on next, but would keep the > temporal ordering of patches 'correct'. b) will make 'next' look a lot > cleaner, but lose ordering information. > >> If these do get reverted rather than doing a branch, ajax, please >> squash the two patches I just sent to the list into your tree. > > I propose to reset master back before the ABI change and then > cherry-pick any non-ABI fixes that Adam sent, then re-push master at > that point. This will make things pretty, although will cause a mild > amount of grief for people tracking the server tree.
Don't reset, the damage is done, accept it, embrace it, revert it. Dave. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
