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=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=lNRTnD0eHL6D09cQelyR86OUOAyxMarHGLKFi4+WV7k=;
        b=q8VaCHXMB7V/30zwl6szzzBO2BTPvha3ADbi6WxfLlY/sOa4U/ESDxyP+duKXx13Ei
         RESyG1fQ5hBpm21TVO1SgI++xu9c6I+7zg+yz7GupdNaL4mzGWGnI7qWSKOqXAxBM2IF
         Yglc90dCOEJcEiuuDJjEU1JOx6THGbNYEfx56fjs4Uvvhn+towpnJckKH7Lr58QSk7oB
         Q6NSnvLowPGSZtAL50ZZiHECUzkguaRYcHgbqHdw8m4w8w92mVpC4C1Dmsgc7c8q5xN8
         As9YMK9ZIdvgZ/H9ommMlefHff2frHpFKwjDOvMn8Odxs56s5mplFVfMSve0qVVVLsyT
         nrhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=lNRTnD0eHL6D09cQelyR86OUOAyxMarHGLKFi4+WV7k=;
        b=lzdTGb5tNJxWtxAIo2isDzi/6s8hbBZViOB027GQnmJ4QR7KrBHL321m4Jho5DawCs
         VVdn3tb0MyxTJNn9aQmiJ+0raorMgPP8lhA8q0B+xRsSgoyZWhW6g3KnFBQbspIbEwIa
         C9AvVdECvvVYxG9nmo2ZSvJ1Yq3M3Z40Zygmfs1bT22lWlMZWIBDl5wCcS+e3HJwmG0R
         0q+rDQHIOyrH7NQtRKNw09KtwzbI0iqtO7PPG1GBPFcW4xBVQEMZSz6jJTSG3WsC0ahU
         jdYWpEQnm9J89NQq42cgv/TcT7kByou+B56eICQJyv4QgRu4EPDH07nM0WDyrJuqKHqX
         31Ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSpnHF0kQeLPMS8IeBfNHX8mgVhThAEOcoZXy7n+oJaEmuSYXSI4P6ewFIbogxF1uvge2lMxJSRm2zt7w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.19.164 with SMTP id g4mr8621156wje.120.1454597464427;
 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 06:51:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACwWb3AJs7CX7VYhr+S1Wm-jp0Tt=Y64Gbb=GzgGiZiNCo0xWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC4O8c_fPco1L6LJ0wWuh6yvWM4+XM8RdWqyO4bkmAD-Oe5Lqg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CACwWb3AJs7CX7VYhr+S1Wm-jp0Tt=Y64Gbb=GzgGiZiNCo0xWQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 05:51:04 -0900
Message-ID: <CAC4O8c8PXuqASDpYBWn+ddg2fpUxf+CMk5pBpr_7nrAugGikPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] unstable_master branch
From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Levente (leventelist AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> This kind of branching strategy is always leads to this question. I'm
> more supporting this route:
>
> 1. You define your goal accurately
> 2. You create your feature branch
> 3. You do the development on your feature branch.
> 3a. You may create experimental branches from your feature branch, and
> merge it back to the feature branch.
> 4. Do some tests (smoke tests, or whatever) (I don't know if we have one)
> 5. Merge back to master.
>
>
> I don't think you can live without rebasing. If someone in the
> meantime merges something into the master, you shall rebase your
> feature branch if you want those lines of code.

Yes, devels rebase their branches when master (or unstable_master)
changes in a way they want to follow, that's a different case.  What
I'm talking about is when a branch is done, how you go about merging
it back into master.  Some like rebase for that because it keeps the
history looking nice, but of course the real history is that it was
done in parallel, there might be interactions, and if there are it can
be really hard to sort out if you've rebased into master instead of
merged.

Britton