On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > > > builds have got behind their F16 builds. > > > > > > I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no > > > readily apparently reason in this case. > > > > I haven't looked deeply enough to tell, but in general merges are a very > > bad tool and should be avoid IMHO. > > > > It would be much more sane to git cherry-pick the changes you need and > > keep the branches separate and have their own history. > > Merges makes it really painful to follow history later. > > I agree. Once branches have started to diverge, merging them makes the > history harder to follow because the branches keep diverging, merging > back, diverging again, merging,... > > However, it is sometimes possible to never diverge. > > In the example of gnome-power-manager, the master and f16 branches seem > to contain the exact same changes, in the same order. > > In such a case, it would have made sense to always keep merging the > branches rather than cherry-picking, so that they would never have > diverged. > > And that would have avoided the conflict Adam is seeing. thanks both of you; I hadn't really thought about the consequences of merging vs. cherry-picking, I think I'd just cargo-culted from somewhere the idea of using git merge instead of manually re-doing changes without considering cherry-picking instead. so I guess in general it's both a better idea and more likely to work to use cherry-pick instead of merge, unless the two branches are really expected to be identical? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
