El 4/6/2008, a las 12:02, David escribió:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
El 4/6/2008, a las 10:30, David escribió:
Thanks :-) This still isn't what I had in mind (see my earlier post
with examples), but I realise now, thanks to your post, that I can
probably do it like this:
[snip]
Sounds like it would definitely work but it also sounds like a lot of
repetitive "busy work"[1] which could be avoided by using finer-
grained
topic branches in the first place.
I see where you're coming from, and I am learning to work more in this
way. Using git has made a big difference to how I develop. Not just as
a SCM, but also for improved work-flow. eg trying out things in code,
and storing failed attempts for later reference/retries/etc if it
doesn't work out.
My problem with your post is, even if you take this to the extreme
(topic branches for every fix that you want to make), there will still
be cases where while working on one fix (maybe disruptive to the main
branch), you uncover problems with master and start fixing it in your
topic branch.
It isn't always easy to fix the problems in master (that you're seeing
in topic) by changing back to master and making another topic. Maybe
you can only (easily) find & detect the problems in master because of
other changes in topic (eg: WIP unit tests) that you aren't ready to
merge yet.
So you would probably have to jump back and forth between your topic,
and your new 'fix problems in master' branch a lot to track down the
issues and get the fixes into master. This sounds like a lot more
'busy work' than simply cherry-picking (multiple) those fixes out of
your topic branch into master, and then rebasing your topic branch :-)
I guess it depends on how long-lived your topic branches are, and how
urgently you want to get independent fixes back into "master".
If the topic branch isn't very long-lived, and the fix isn't
incredibly urgent, you could just keep it in the topic until the
entire topic branch is ready to be merged back in.
If the fix depends on changes in the topic branch then getting it into
master may not be so urgent anyway. How often does this really happen?
I know that all code bases are different, but in my experience if I
discover a problem (in master) while working on a topic, the fix is
usually independent of the topic, in which case I have two options:
either fix it on master (and then optionally rebase the topic), or
just fix it on the topic and let the fix propagate back to the master
when I merge in the topic.
Don't forget that you also have "git stash" for those moments when you
are working on a topic and see a completely unrelated fix or change
that you want to do.
But obviously, this is all highly context-dependent and what works for
me won't always work for everyone.
Wincent
--
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
