| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 12:28 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> > This is only |
| 6 |
>> > good for running the code directly from the git checkout. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> actually seems useful. We've had clearly broken commits go upstream, |
| 9 |
>> and if the author had been able to test from a git checkout we |
| 10 |
>> probably could have avoided that. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Which is why I made the rewrite code able to run from the checkout fully |
| 13 |
> and properly. Just cd into the directory, run "source ./testpath" and |
| 14 |
> it's will run completely from the checkout. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> What I mean is that I don't want to turn down contributions from new |
| 18 |
>> developers because there's a big backlog of work that hasn't gone |
| 19 |
>> upstream. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I don't want to discourage others either. It is just much better to |
| 23 |
> encourage some help on the rewrite in my opinion. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
No, you should be moving patches that are reviewed and tested to |
| 26 |
master (which means rebasing on master and sending patches to the |
| 27 |
mailing list). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> Especially since |
| 30 |
> patches 2 & 3 have already been done in the rewrite branch. Some of |
| 31 |
> patch 4 might have been done already, but likely not all. If the |
| 32 |
> rewrite is to take over from the master branch... |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> The rewrite is not far from being able to take over as master. There |
| 35 |
> are a few rebase errors in the rewrite-on-master you did. There is some |
| 36 |
> cleanup work to do on the autoresume operation. Then a little more |
| 37 |
> testing with the tree defaults relocated to ensure I haven't missed any |
| 38 |
> hard coding. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The development model on git is to make incremental changes that do |
| 41 |
not break things. I've been saying this for a while. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
The code needs to be reviewed as well. Maybe Dylan, who has been |
| 44 |
cleaning up a lot of python code in another project, would be willing |
| 45 |
to help review as well. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> The default tree location move is waiting on the catalyst rewrite code |
| 48 |
> to go live producing stages, etc.. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I'm exactly sure what this means, but I think you might mean something |
| 51 |
like renaming master to old-master and your branch to master. That's |
| 52 |
not the right way to do it, and that's not how git works. |
Archives