From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git/spearce.git (Oct 2008, #02; Sun, 12) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:25:49 -0700 Message-ID: <7vhc7gbmhe.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20081012212543.GG4856@spearce.org> <20081013013752.8fc16695.stephen@exigencecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Haberman X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 13 16:27:49 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KpOOf-0004kU-37 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:27:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757202AbYJMO0E (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:26:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757219AbYJMO0C (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:26:02 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:45945 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757202AbYJMO0A (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:26:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7F28995A; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05A9A89955; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:25:53 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DB39AF04-9932-11DD-BAFE-4F5276724C3F-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Stephen Haberman writes: > (I also have a test comment typo and test_expect_failure change to make > to rebase-i-p from Junio's feedback and would like to know the > preferred way to submit those--e.g. a patch on top of your pu, a patch > on top of the existing series, or a new series all together. Given it > is not next, I'm guessing a new series all together.) You guessed it right. As sh/maint-rebase3 is about a pure fix, while the other -i-p is a more involved enhancement, I am guessing Shawn decided not to queue the latter for 1.6.0.X, and I agree with that. The final shape of the history should look like: * maint will eventually get sh/maint-rebase3 to be in 1.6.0.X, which in turn will eventually be merged to master; * master will eventually get sh/rebase-i-p. When two series have dependencies like this, it is generally the easiest and cleanest to prepare them to match such a final shape of the history. Hence, we would want two series built like this: * sh/maint-rebase3 applicable to the tip of 'maint' (this is already done; what is in sh/maint-rebase3 is exactly that); * apply the above locally to 'maint', merge the result locally to 'master', and prepare sh/rebase-i-p series applicable on top of that merge. Thanks.