This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Archer project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: New branch for Fedora 11 merges

Jan Kratochvil wrote:

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?

The big concern that I have about using separate branches is that both Sami and I are touching the same parts of GDB (and not superficially, either), and we may introduce patches on separate branches which may interfere with each other later when merged.

I've already run into this with my two expressions-related branches, and I believe that Sami has also run into this when he merged into the expr-cumulative branch from his own branch. I foresaw this happening, and that's why I moved to committing all my expressions work into a single, unified branch in the last couple of weeks.

Yes, it will be a huge amount of work to extract small, digestible pieces for submitting upstream. Then again, when it comes to upstream GDB, everything is a huge amount of work anyway. It's part of the price we pay for the decisions we've made.

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).

That's a good point: I'd never have thought of that. Once again, this is an artifact of our development model, which appears (to me) to have its problems. [Hint: Are we going to have to allocate resources for one person to continually merge "features/fixes" (branches) into a "release branch"?]


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]