From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Whitwell Subject: Re: [Mesa3d-dev] mesa_7_7_branch -> master merges Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:59:55 +0000 Message-ID: <1264503595.18994.5.camel@toffee> References: <1264424650.3029.155.camel@jfonseca-laptop> <1264443264.3029.255.camel@jfonseca-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jose Fonseca , "git@vger.kernel.org" , mesa3d-dev To: tom fogal X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 26 12:00:13 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NZj9Z-000101-Ex for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:00:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753248Ab0AZLAA (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:00:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753197Ab0AZLAA (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:00:00 -0500 Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com ([65.115.85.69]:39069 "EHLO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753180Ab0AZK77 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:59:59 -0500 Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A86D4046; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:59:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.218.207] (unknown [10.20.218.207]) by jupiter.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59721DC149; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:59:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 11:04 -0800, tom fogal wrote: > I think we've touched on a core git workflow issue here, and its likely > others have hit this && have a solution, so I've added the git ML to > the CC list. > > Git: the situation in this repo is a fast-moving master that is > including many changes to internal interfaces. Stable branches just > get bugfixes, and are periodically merged to master. However, the more > the heads diverge, the more difficult it is for a bugfix to merge into > the head. The major issue is that more experienced developers should > really weigh in on these merges, because they tend to automagically > undo some of the interface changes. Yet during such a delay, master > inevitably moves, and the bugfixer has to do even more work to "redo" > the merge (and potentially get more review!). > > Of course, if there are two bugfixers trying to make separate changes > in the same time period, this gets worse. > > Is there a workflow that can solve this issue? > Speaking from the Mesa side, I think part of our problem is that it's not easy to build the entire mesa tree, which means that the developer doing the merge cannot even compile-test the result, meaning that many trivial failures go unnoticed. I'd argue that if we had a maximal mesa build target that compiled *everything*, regardless of whether it produced drivers or not, we'd have a much better chance of catching bogus merge droppings. Despite Jose's valid concerns, I'd still argue that the situation we have now is superior to what came before - where people were supposed to be cherry-picking bugfixes but more likely they were forgotten or it fell on Brian's shoulders to do manually. Keith