This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: New branch for Fedora 11 merges
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Sami Wagiaalla <swagiaal at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Rick Moseley <rmoseley at redhat dot com>, Project Archer <archer at sourceware dot org>, Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:37:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: New branch for Fedora 11 merges
- References: <499ADF78.email@example.com> <499AE465.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:23:01 +0100, Sami Wagiaalla wrote:
>> Is anyone else's branch ready to be merged?
> I have merged my branch archer-swagiaal-using-directive into Keiths'
> branch archer-keiths-expr-cumulative, and resolved conflicts. If Keith
> is done with archer-keiths-expr-cumulative, it is ready to go.
IMO archer-swagiaal-using-directive and archer-keiths-expr-cumulative are not
based one on the other and the functionality of each of the branches can be
fully exploited without the code of the other branch. Or am I wrong?
If you would like to help with the merging please create a new merged branch
(something like archer-swagiaal-cxx-merge) tracking both the branches
archer-swagiaal-using-directive and archer-keiths-expr-cumulative.
Merging together the base branches of unrelated functionalities creates more
work during later splitting for reviews, regression analysis on updates,
Also please if you get some parts of the branch (as happened multiple times
for archer-tromey-python) accepted for FSF GDB please git-revert (or just
unpatch/commit) that part and freshly merge it with origin/master (after its
update from gdb/master). Otherwise it is a lot of later looking up which
variant is the more recent - if it got updated during the FSF GDB discussions
before it got accepted for FSF GDB or if it got updated in Archer since the
FSF GDB accept.
To advocate myself on the recently created merge branch:
archer-jankratochvil-python - Merge of "archer-tromey-python"
is IMO useful to merge as both the [python] and [vla] branches require the
[type-refcount] functionality. [vla] has been already based on latest
[type-refcount] while [python] was still using the base part of
[type-refcount] originally written by Tom and sufficient for [python] (but not
sufficient for [vla]).