On 10/26/2015 04:01 PM, Joshua Cranmer wrote:
On 10/26/2015 4:16 PM, Bobby Holley wrote:
Question: Would we actually need sparse checkouts? What if c-c was
just a branch in the repo with extra stuff, which periodically took
merges from m-c?
That seems like a simple and tempting idea. Just make it a long-lived
branch. But would it serve the purpose of merging? Build system work
would need the c-c bits, but then you'd want to merge that stuff back,
which means cherry-picking build system changes or something.
That makes bisecting to find m-c-induced failures harder, and it also
makes atomic commits (even for c-c contributors who want to make
changes to m-c that affect both, such as myself) impossible still.
And build system changes are another example where you want atomic commits.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I still think that even that change would
not ease up the difficulty of attracting new contributors, nor would
it really solve the apparent goal of making c-c code invisible to m-c
developers, since you'd see it if you accidentally checked out the
default branch when tip was c-c and not m-c.
Not if c-c was on a branch.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
