On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Felipe Contreras >>> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On the other hand 'gnome-2-0' is not pointing to any release, there >>>> where commits after the last release. So my question here is: who >>>> would care about those commits? They were done 6 years ago and nobody >>>> made a tag that contains them. The arguments I've heard apply to the >>>> stable releases (GEDIT_2_0_5), if somebody wants to create a GNOME 2.0 >>>> build, or make GEDIT_2_0_6 release, they'll probably go for the latest >>>> code that was actually released and used. >>> >>> I disagree; I think they'd check out the branch and use it; >>> particularly since that has been the practice for a number of years >>> now. But that's only one side of the issue, and the less interesting >>> one at that... >> >> *sigh* >> >> Do this command: >> $git checkout GEDIT_2_0_5 >> >> Then do 'git branch'. What do you see? "(no branch)" Of course, >> completely unintuitive, how contributors are expected to create a >> 2.0.6 release under such hard conditions! >> >> Well, now do this command: >> $git checkout origin/gnome-2-0 >> >> What does 'git branch' show this time? "(no branch)" Ah, much better! >> Now contributors will be on their element. >> >> Creating a local branch is a step that you need to do on both cases, >> there's no difference whatsoever. > > That's kind of orthogonal to the point I was making and responding to. > I was responding to your two comments, "who would care about those > commits" and "if somebody wants to create a GNOME 2.0 build, or make > GEDIT_2_0_6 release, they'll probably go for the latest code that was > actually released and used." Using the GEDIT_2_0_5 tag vs. the > origin/gnome-2-0 branch give you different answers, since the branch > may have advanced past the tag; so there's a decision to be made. You > have consistently claimed that those commits on the branch were > useless and no one would even look at them, and I was pointing out > historical precedent that was in conflict with this assumption of > yours.
Ok I thought when you said "that has been the practice for a number of years now" you were trying to argue against checking out tags on the basis of unfamiliarity. If you agree that checking out a tag or a branch is exactly the same on terms of difficulty then we are on the same page. Such branches were distributions just push the stuff sounds a lot like the 'pu' branch in git. The fact that they are proposed updates doesn't mean they'll get in. Someone would need to make a review of the patches before making the release and drop the ones not acceptable. I don't see how GNOME people can be comfortable making a release out of patches nobody has reviewed, but that's for another thread. >> I express concern because when you use git properly branches are a >> central part of development (unlike other SCMs) therefore you *see* >> these branches all the time, which is annoying. > > I agree. > >> I understand the need for such branches like 'gnome-2-20'. It's >> unlikely, but some one might make a release out of that. But >> 'gnome-2-0'? > > Maybe I missed your switch, but I thought you had been advocating > 'master' and 'devel' and getting rid of 'gnome-2-x' branches until > today. So I was responding to that. I'm still advocating 'master' and 'stable', but also gnome-2.x.y (on *all* the projects). If the branch is active I say it should stay, if it's not, I say it should go. To be more clear, I think bot the gedit and gnome repos should have gnome-2.26 branches, but not gedit-1.4 or gtk-2.16. > I agree it'd be nice to move known-to-be-unused branches to some > archival or legacy area (refs/archive/*, refs/legacy/*?). You just > have to be reasonably certain they are really unused (no enterprise > distro could possibly be using them anymore, etc.). I'm guessing > there's very few gnome-2-x branches that are ready for archiving by > now. Perhaps it's true that gnome-2.x branches are still not ready to be archived, but there are many other branches. >> Do you seriously think because git.git is maintained by Junio nobody >> else has a clone of that repo? Of course not! Every git developer had >> a clone, and they all saw the maint branches. Some might have have >> work on top of those branches. >> >> Why didn't the world fell to pieces when Junio removed those branches? >> git is *distributed* if you have local main-1.6.0 branch with 4 >> commits and Junio removes the branch what happens? Nothing, you only >> see that "origin/main-1.6.0" was removed, big deal. Your local >> main-1.6.0 remains intact. > > I must have done a really poor job communicating; sorry about that. > You had been advocating only having 'master' and 'stable' branches. I > was pointing out that even git.git went further than that and had the > equivalent of stable-x.y branches, and that I thought we would need > those too. I figured you'd say, "yes, but they have since been > deleted in git.git", and so I proceeded to point out why I think gnome > is different and would need to keep several of those stable-x.y > branches around for a long time and not delete them. I'm advocating branches that are actually used: active, moving. The fact that Junio is the only maintainer of git makes no difference whatsoever. The difference is your historical maintenance policy since apparently dropping certain branches will affect some people. >> Yes, but what about branches like CORBA_ENABLED, GEDIT_VIEW, GNOME_MDI. > > Oh, I'm a big fan of archiving old branches like these; that sounds > great. I just think the gnome-2-x branches will need to be around > longer (e.g. rhel4 is still supported and ships with gnome 2.8), but > it sounds like you're now in agreement with that. The fact that rhel4 is shipping gnome 2.8 doesn't necessarily mean they use the gnome-2-8 branch. But let's suppose they do, then yes, gnome-2-8 branch should be kept. But 1.x branches can probably be dropped, and a simple announcement would do: we are going to drop 1.x branches, if you are still using these branches, please shout. > I hope this email is a bit clearer than my last; sorry about that. Yes, thanks. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list