On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:15 AM, John Arbash Meinel wrote: >I would mention that for packaging, I think you really do want to have >'upstream' as the first thread, which doesn't work with the pipeline >model, since a given branch can only participate in one pipeline.
Not just for packaging. When I'm developing bug fix or feature branches, I always like to have the devel branch as the bottom thread in my loom. Note too though that I want control over when I update the bottom thread independently of when I update the devel branch. This is something that feels more natural to me in looms than in pipelines. >Which (IMO) is something that pushes for having a real DAG in the loom >state, rather than just a stack model. As it means you can push *just >this thread* into upstream, and have them merge it, without them having >to merge all of your other changes. Otherwise the loom is just there to >help you develop the patch. And then you throw away all the history once >the patch gets applied to upstream. I'm being more convinced of this as these discussions proceed. Having a DAG would, I think, resolve some of the trickier branches I've developed with looms. I agree with James that the ui is difficult though. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
