X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=VXHpNQATYKX2iVaOmGmqMwqLG0NQJ/3VmzK6bHW28FU=;
        b=kkHQHG0OEvidAmrkAymxeCC15/kLp5XDKaiJBks8XPeY85WeOFZeFm/NF0X5sXkYU3
         gWA4MuSQxjDW9IcwuU/gRRwS/n7z8nc1OoKUUV1L36iD971fSj2mOQrg629PQ7Wny3wJ
         H0CcRpqYchzhfbnVhFzJmJGIxy8glmtOlwcfIXRipaYMhkwvGtVwoLg8YnAhCd/6Mrni
         WZmarl+YNxBPQYV5lMR34TapY7e5BH2NLWFComBz6Kg84fPE+bEYoIFycJ7uaGYgB936
         HhpsSBIHZUWa2Q+yQboM0LzJniLguH0VboYsDsZ6PxQ56GJl6RpSGVFMzyWH2NmqtTBN
         tOog==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.233.132 with SMTP id tw4mr49442785oec.35.1451721138585;
 Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:52:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4O8c_p5bMB1cKzDEsQFSnbZvY3TgnczH94pO_qCoJmiv2iWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC4O8c_p5bMB1cKzDEsQFSnbZvY3TgnczH94pO_qCoJmiv2iWQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 07:52:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJXU7q9rMcQpLU5020RoZTqskT4moOS6f3Ugw+g3_mhO565MLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Merging stuff. How to make it happen
From: "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136b270c747bf0528552ad9
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

--001a1136b270c747bf0528552ad9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Britton,

I've been looking at some of your branches, (a quick look at least), and
would like to do a more in depth review.

Any objections to that before merging? I can try to find some time tomorrow
if your about.

Would appreciate a second pair of eyes on some of my stuff too, in the not
yo distant future.

Best wishes,

Peter
On 2 Jan 2016 02:32, "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

>
> I want to merge the more trivial branches I've worked on now.
>
> If there are more specific objections I'll fix or otherwise address them
> as I have all the ones that have come up so far.
>
> I stopped by the last sprint briefly and asked about this.  It sounds like
> there's no definite policy for deciding when to merge things.  I therefore
> propose that the following conditions should always be considered
> sufficient for a merge into the main devel branch:
>
>   * the person who wrote it says it's ready
>   * at least one other person has looked at the patch
>   * devel fixed or addressed any issues raised
>   * it doesn't remove any functionality
>   * it doesn't do anything known to be contentious
>
> Whatever exact policy we use, it would be useful if we could get branches
> merged faster than currently.  Developers tend to move from one initial
> issue to closely related ones that they discover while working on the
> first.  The changes involved frequently overlap, which makes maintaining
> them as separate parallel branches hard.  So with slow merging you end up
> with big branches.  Big branches are generally harder to manage, especially
> when using the rebase approach.
>
> Britton
>

--001a1136b270c747bf0528552ad9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">Hi Britton, </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;ve been looking at some of your branches, (a quick loo=
k at least), and would like to do a more in depth review.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Any objections to that before merging? I can try to find som=
e time tomorrow if your about.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Would appreciate a second pair of eyes on some of my stuff t=
oo, in the not yo distant future.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Best wishes,</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Peter</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 Jan 2016 02:32, &quot;Britton Kerin (<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com">britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a h=
ref=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>]&quot; &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><=
br><div>I want to merge the more trivial branches I&#39;ve worked on now.</=
div><div><br></div><div>If there are more specific objections I&#39;ll fix =
or otherwise address them as I have all the ones that have come up so far.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>I stopped by the last sprint briefly and asked abo=
ut this.=C2=A0 It sounds like there&#39;s no definite policy for deciding w=
hen to merge things.=C2=A0 I therefore propose that the following condition=
s should always be considered sufficient for a merge into the main devel br=
anch:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 * the person who wrote it says it&#39=
;s ready</div><div>=C2=A0 * at least one other person has looked at the pat=
ch</div><div>=C2=A0 * devel fixed or addressed any issues raised</div><div>=
=C2=A0 * it doesn&#39;t remove any functionality</div><div>=C2=A0 * it does=
n&#39;t do anything known to be contentious</div><div><br></div><div>Whatev=
er exact policy we use, it would be useful if we could get branches merged =
faster than currently.=C2=A0 Developers tend to move from one initial issue=
 to closely related ones that they discover while working on the first.=C2=
=A0 The changes involved frequently overlap, which makes maintaining them a=
s separate parallel branches hard.=C2=A0 So with slow merging you end up wi=
th big branches.=C2=A0 Big branches are generally harder to manage, especia=
lly when using the rebase approach.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Britton<=
/div></div>
</blockquote></div>

--001a1136b270c747bf0528552ad9--