Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Merge vs. Rebase

[Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

I find that rebase is also necessary to establish responsibility.

If two developments are merged, it is not clear whether commit A committed later but authored earlier than B is responsible for compatibility.

After rebasing, there is a clear linear order and so the later commit is responsible for testing compatibility with the earlier.

    Regards

        Ed Willink

On 27/05/2014 12:22, Cedric Dumoulin wrote:

  I Andrew,

  Thanks for starting the discussion :-).
  I think too that we should avoid as much as possible merging nodes in the history. For that, we should favor fast-forward merges and rebasing.

  We certainly need to clarify the practices on how Papyrus commiters should retrieve/modify/push code in the Papyrus repository.
  Does someone has  good practice(s) to propose ?

  Cedric

 

Andrew Eidsness a écrit :

I haven't seen a discussion about setting up the Papyrus Gerrit to use rebase instead of merge.  I've attached a screen
shot of a typical section of the Papyrus project's history and a screen shot of a typical section of the CDT project's
history.

The prevelance of merge nodes and the minor parallel streams makes for confusing code archelogical sessions.  This gets
even more complicated when tracking multiple release streams (e.g., master and a maintenance branch).

The problem is especially visible when contrasted with the CDT's straight-line history.

These screenshots aren't really a fair comparison; the CDT project is showing twice as much information!  I am tracking
only one remote branch in the Papyrus repo and two in the CDT one.

I can see why merge nodes might be nice to see your own merge nodes for the past few days development.  However the more
common case is to exploring other people's changes further in the past.  As an example use case, consider investigating
a particular section of code using the annotations.  I don't really care if the code was merged somewhere, what I care
about is the original commit the created the code.

Does the Papyrus project have any interest in changing from merge-based to rebase-based :-) development?  If this seems
like too radical of a change to make, then what about having a merge-based collector branch that is then rebased into a
straightline onto master?

-Andrew

_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev

_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3950/7569 - Release Date: 05/27/14