[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Make doc broken - 1d9a73b13ee576d28c0f41f5b243f2ebb1ff9fcf
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Make doc broken - 1d9a73b13ee576d28c0f41f5b243f2ebb1ff9fcf |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:20:22 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 04:41:35PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Dingdingding. I don't think dev/staging should be _merged_, only
> fast-forwarded (do the merge using --ff-only). If it is not
> forwardable, the dev/staging master should rebase it on master (so that
> it becomes fast-forwardable) and submit it to testing (if necessary, by
> overwriting dev/staging again).
Hmm. At the moment, master and dev/staging cannot be "combined"
(to use hopefully non-specific terminology) with --ff-only.
Bertrand's 6ee8c04678442855cb794d4598c056c15c42673b gets in the
way of doing
git merge --ff-only
in either way.
My initial instinct would be just to do
git checkout master
git merge dev/staging
..test...
git push
but I'm going to hold off until you advise me on this.
> The problem is that a merge means
> a) the particular version to be committed has not been tested.
I don't think this is terribly important. I mean, yes it's
theoretically true that 6ee8c04678442855cb794d4598c056c15c42673b
could have ruined your patches in dev/staging, but as long as the
combination can compile, we haven't *lost* any reliability
relative to the status quo.
> b) if one patch in the series is bad, the whole merge needs to be
> reverted. Reverting a merge is _really_ _really_ bad. After that,
> all changes are gone, but git is of the opinion that it has
> considered all source patches already. Cherry-picking any of them
> won't help. The only remedy is reverting the revert, and then
> reverting single patches. Ouch ouch ouch.
This sounds more serious.
Cheers,
- Graham