1 |
On 06/26/2011 07:03 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> All, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I checked out a local branch from master earlier today and rebased that |
5 |
> on catalyst_2. Now that branch has over 100 commits, which will be the |
6 |
> combination of everything on catilyst 2 and current master. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> So, how would you suggest we get that branch back out where everyone can |
9 |
> see it? Do you want me to put it back out on master? It won't be a |
10 |
> forced update, because I used rebase instead of merge. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> The only catch is I don't know how broken that will leave master. |
13 |
|
14 |
That sentence^^^ rings at least warning bells in my ears. I don't know |
15 |
how well you know the code, how easy conflicts were to solve. What may |
16 |
be important is that we have little (if any) test cases and that we get |
17 |
little help from Python and Bash to detect breakage for us. If that |
18 |
transition adds a pile of bugs that we'll find by chance somewhere next |
19 |
year, that would be a problem. |
20 |
|
21 |
Personally I may have chosen a road moving both branches towards each |
22 |
other until their diff resolves to zero and than add a fake merge |
23 |
commit. But that's dry theory - no idea if that would have worked well. |
24 |
Plus I woulnd't make it alone and not in a few days or hours. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
> What are your thoughts? |
28 |
|
29 |
Please put them on a new branch (not master) while we're not sure ff the |
30 |
resulting commits could or should be the future. |
31 |
|
32 |
Thanks, |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
Sebastian |