On May 13, 2014, at 11:47 AM, John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it would be silly to merge after every commit. One strategy might be to
> frequently merge from master and then revert the merge if there are no
> conflicts. ISTM that relying on rerere in the face of ongoing development on
> both branches risks replaying what was the right answer with last week's code
> but isn't with this week's, so if there are conflicts resolved in the merge
> it stays so that new code builds on the resolved result rather than
> continuing to diverge.
>
> I think merges into master should happen for every module (e.g. gncguid,
> gncdate) so that conflicts coming into master are limited to a single
> subject. That should make it a bit easier for the person doing the merge to
> keep track of which way to resolve the conflicts.
>
> That will still produce a ladder appearance in gitk and friends. I don't find
> that objectionable, but apparently some people do.
I agree that merging master into topic branches frequently is a good idea. I
have a long running branch where I do all my real work and merge master into it
often. This seems to work well. I've also created more short lived topic
branches and used them like this.
In the other direction, I think that once a topic branch is merged to master it
should be abandoned (unless it is used to fix bugs in the stuff that was just
merged). A new topic branch should be created for subsequent changes, even if
they are related to the changes that were just merged (such as the same changes
to a different part of the code). I'm not sure if this is what you're
suggesting or not, but it would seem to avoid a ladder appearance (if I know
what you mean by that).
Mike
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
