On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
>>> wrote:
On the other hand 'gnome-2-0' is not pointing to
Hi,
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>>> On the other hand 'gnome-2-0' is not pointing to any release, there
>>> where commits after the last release. So m
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 16:00 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> >> case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches
> >> '1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'.
>
> Quick note. If we're going to have short branch names (as I'm planning to
> use
> for pango), it should be "1.2", not "1-2".
Why? S
I have to admit, there is probably some advantage to moving these very
old branches into an archive (either refs/archive/foo or a complete
archive clone) after some amount of time. Mostly because I thought "new
IM? What new IM?".
Also permit the deletion of branches that have been merged with mast
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Les Harris wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> Would you fight to keep alive the branch Linus just found too crappy
>> and just killed it? If a commit never made it to a release and
>> probably never would, is it really that impor
Hi! Welcome to the end of the thread. It certainly has
been fun, but in order to conserve our precious electrons
in these hard economic times, we must regretfully now
close this thread.
As the kids say, you don't have to go home, but you can't
post here.
Thank you and good night.
Hi
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Les Harris wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>
> The consensus so far seems to be that losing commits is a non-starter.
> It's not clear to me what benefit dropping these ossified branches
> gives us. What is the problem you'
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> Would you fight to keep alive the branch Linus just found too crappy
> and just killed it? If a commit never made it to a release and
> probably never would, is it really that important?
It seems to me whatever Linus decided to do for the
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
> 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? T
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 23:26 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 12:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> >> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 02:21 +0300, Felipe Contreras
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 23:15 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Are you going to argue that this branch is desirable to keep alive for
>> all eternity?
>> http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gedit/log/?h=CORBA_ENABLED
>
> I think most reasonable people wil
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 23:15 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Are you going to argue that this branch is desirable to keep alive for
> all eternity?
> http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gedit/log/?h=CORBA_ENABLED
I think most reasonable people will say that there is a difference
between branches which were
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 23:26 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 12:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 02:21 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> >> > Debian patches are debian patches, they control
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 12:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 02:21 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> > Debian patches are debian patches, they control them, and they make
>> > debian releases. If GNOME decides to remov
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 02:21 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> Debian patches are debian patches, they control them, and they make
>> debian releases. If GNOME decides to remove those commits the
>> distributions will not loose their pat
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
> 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?
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 12:27 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 02:21 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> > Debian patches are debian patches, they control them, and they make
> > debian releases. If GNOME decides to remove those commits the
> > distributions will not loose thei
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 02:21 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> Debian patches are debian patches, they control them, and they make
> debian releases. If GNOME decides to remove those commits the
> distributions will not loose their patches.
I think this summarize well the whole thing: we do
Hi,
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:13:07AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:33:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> >> >> Imagine someone who has been
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 01:13:07AM +0300, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:33:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> >> >> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer.
> >> >> >> What
> >> >>
Hi,
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
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
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 01:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> > No. It points to the latest code in the 2.24 branch. There might be code
>> > after the release. It's a branch, it's
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 01:28 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> > Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 01:01 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> >> You don't need a branch to make commits, tag them
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 01:24 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > No. It points to the latest code in the 2.24 branch. There might be code
> > after the release. It's a branch, it's not a tag. So, maybe I don't
> > understand what you're s
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> You don't need a branch to make commits, tag them and push them.
>
> The current workflow is well understood, works well for translators
> and other contributors, and is supported by all our tools (damned
> lies,
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 01:28 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 01:01 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> >> You don't need a branch to make commits, tag them and push them.
> >>
> >> $ git checkout PANGO_1_2_4
> >> #
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 01:01 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> You don't need a branch to make commits, tag them and push them.
>>
>> $ git checkout PANGO_1_2_4
>> # make changes
>> $ git commit -a
>> $ git tag PANGO_1_2_5
>> $ git push
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 00:48 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Robin Sonefors wrote:
>> > On tis, 2009-05-05 at 23:10 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hi
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:33:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> >> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
>> >> >> would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'?
>> >> >
>> >> > 'stable' was already d
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> You don't need a branch to make commits, tag them and push them.
The current workflow is well understood, works well for translators
and other contributors, and is supported by all our tools (damned
lies, jhbuild, pulse...). I really don't see the point in changing
it,
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 01:01 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> You don't need a branch to make commits, tag them and push them.
>
> $ git checkout PANGO_1_2_4
> # make changes
> $ git commit -a
> $ git tag PANGO_1_2_5
> $ git push origin PANGO_1_2_5
>
> But if you feel icky about not workin
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>> > On 05/05/2009 04:12 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
>> >> w
Le mercredi 06 mai 2009, à 00:48 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Robin Sonefors wrote:
> > On tis, 2009-05-05 at 23:10 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>
> >> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
> >> would be easier to unders
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 00:33 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> [...]
>> That's just how git works: branches and tags are mere pointers.
>> There's no difference in the object storag
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Robin Sonefors wrote:
> On tis, 2009-05-05 at 23:10 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
>> would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'?
>
> If I want the sources for the gedit in Gnome 2.2
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 00:33 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> [...]
> That's just how git works: branches and tags are mere pointers.
> There's no difference in the object storage, the only difference is
> logical, you use branches in a way, ta
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:33:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:52:54PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:10:42PM +0300,
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On 05/05/2009 04:12 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
> >> wrote:
> >
> > case that's not a compelling argument; y
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:52:54PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:10:42PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> > IMO you should make a good argument to sw
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:52:54PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:10:42PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> > IMO you should make a good argument to switch, not the other way around.
> >>
> >> What I'm proposin
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:10:42PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> > IMO you should make a good argument to switch, not the other way around.
>>
>> What I'm proposing makes things simpler. Do I need to make a good
>> argument of why simple t
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On 05/05/2009 04:12 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
>> wrote:
>
> case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches
> '1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'.
>>>
>>> Quick no
Hi,
I am trying to put some git wishes pros/cons in
http://live.gnome.org/Git/Wishes. I surely missed things, but I tried
to be neutral.
regards,
--
Marc-André Lureau
Sent from Helsinki, Southern Finland, Finland
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
de
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:10 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> To be clear on what I'm proposing: there's no need to add 'project' to
> branch names when you already know the project ('1-2' is fine). But
> going into the next level, there's no need to have '1-2', '1-4' and
> '1-0', 'stable' and 'mast
On tis, 2009-05-05 at 23:10 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
> would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'?
If I want the sources for the gedit in Gnome 2.26, cloning gedit's
repository and checking out the branch 'gnom
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:10:42PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > IMO you should make a good argument to switch, not the other way around.
>
> What I'm proposing makes things simpler. Do I need to make a good
> argument of why simple things are good?
You gave as reason 'you just switched your
On 05/05/2009 04:12 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
wrote:
case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches
'1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'.
Quick note. If we're going to have short branch names (as I'm planning to
use for pango), it shou
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Behdad Esfahbod
wrote:
>>> case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches
>>> '1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'.
>
> Quick note. If we're going to have short branch names (as I'm planning to
> use for pango), it should be "1.2", not "1-2".
Yeap, IMHO pan
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:53:55PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
>> > Le mardi 05 mai 2009, à 01:51 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lur
case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches
'1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'.
Quick note. If we're going to have short branch names (as I'm planning to use
for pango), it should be "1.2", not "1-2".
behdad
___
desktop-devel-list mailin
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:53:55PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Le mardi 05 mai 2009, à 01:51 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 5, 200
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mardi 05 mai 2009, à 01:51 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> > wrote:
>> >> [...] what is the point of ha
Le mardi 05 mai 2009, à 01:51 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau
> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
> > wrote:
> >> [...] what is the point of having 'project' in the branch
> >> name? Branches are per-repos
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM, John Carr wrote:
> So I think you should either allow moving branches such as
> 'za-transcoding-rework' or have personal repositories on
> git.gnome.org.
I arrived at the same conclusion after reading Jo
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:37 AM, John Carr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was one of the happiest person on this planet the day we moved to
>> git and i can't thanks the people involved enough. Although overall i
>> am pretty happy wit
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>>> I would suggest a few official branch names like 'master' and 'devel',
>>> and a special two character prefix for personal branches like
>>> 'za-transcoding-rework' (Zeeshan Ali's personal branch), the rest
>>> would be up to the project to decide.
>>
>> A bit like what
Hi,
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> Hi,
> I was one of the happiest person on this planet the day we moved to
> git and i can't thanks the people involved enough. Although overall i
> am pretty happy with the migration, I do have one concern: The policy
> of disall
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> [...] what is the point of having 'project' in the branch
>> name? Branches are per-repository, so you would never have a non
>> 'gtk-' branch in the GTK+ repo.
>>
>
> N
On 05/04/2009 06:21 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
[...] what is the point of having 'project' in the branch
name? Branches are per-repository, so you would never have a non
'gtk-' branch in the GTK+ repo.
Not "project" but really "
Hi
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> [...] what is the point of having 'project' in the branch
> name? Branches are per-repository, so you would never have a non
> 'gtk-' branch in the GTK+ repo.
>
Not "project" but really "[project]-[MAJOR]-[MINOR]"..
> In fact, AFAIK
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Marc-André Lureau
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was one of the happiest person on this planet the day we moved to
>> git and i can't thanks the people involved enough. Although overall i
>> am pretty
Hi
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> Hi,
> I was one of the happiest person on this planet the day we moved to
> git and i can't thanks the people involved enough. Although overall i
> am pretty happy with the migration, I do have one concern: The policy
> of disall
Hi,
I was one of the happiest person on this planet the day we moved to
git and i can't thanks the people involved enough. Although overall i
am pretty happy with the migration, I do have one concern: The policy
of disallowing non-fastforward pushes to any branch. I understand that
this is good f
63 matches
Mail list logo
