On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 11:04 -0800, tom fogal wrote: > I think we've touched on a core git workflow issue here, and its likely > others have hit this && have a solution, so I've added the git ML to > the CC list. > > Git: the situation in this repo is a fast-moving master that is > including many changes to internal interfaces. Stable branches just > get bugfixes, and are periodically merged to master. However, the more > the heads diverge, the more difficult it is for a bugfix to merge into > the head. The major issue is that more experienced developers should > really weigh in on these merges, because they tend to automagically > undo some of the interface changes. Yet during such a delay, master > inevitably moves, and the bugfixer has to do even more work to "redo" > the merge (and potentially get more review!). > > Of course, if there are two bugfixers trying to make separate changes > in the same time period, this gets worse. > > Is there a workflow that can solve this issue? > Speaking from the Mesa side, I think part of our problem is that it's not easy to build the entire mesa tree, which means that the developer doing the merge cannot even compile-test the result, meaning that many trivial failures go unnoticed. I'd argue that if we had a maximal mesa build target that compiled *everything*, regardless of whether it produced drivers or not, we'd have a much better chance of catching bogus merge droppings. Despite Jose's valid concerns, I'd still argue that the situation we have now is superior to what came before - where people were supposed to be cherry-picking bugfixes but more likely they were forgotten or it fell on Brian's shoulders to do manually. Keith -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html