I am testing the doc builds on v1.0.x when I noticed that it seems to think that it is version 1.1.0. Sure enough, somehow lib/matplotlib/init.py has version defined as ‘1.1.0’. Meanwhile, I can’t seem to finish a doc build on the v1.0.x branch, but I could with my docfix/smalltypos branch.
Anybody have any clues what went wrong?
Thanks,
Ben Root
Yes, it seems that the v1.0.x got hosed somehow back in early May.
Eric Firing did some spelunking and traced it to a push I made, but
I’m not sure what I did wrong, and I’m even less sure how to fix
it. If someone with more git-fu wants to investigate and repair it,
that would be fantastic, but I’m afraid to touch it myself.
Mike
Yes, it seems that the v1.0.x got hosed somehow back in early May. Eric
Firing did some spelunking and traced it to a push I made, but I'm not
sure what I did wrong, and I'm even less sure how to fix it. If someone
with more git-fu wants to investigate and repair it, that would be
fantastic, but I'm afraid to touch it myself.Mike
Mike, all:
Suggestion: Let's just abandon the v1.0.x branch, stabilize master, and get a release out. (Easy for me to say--I have never contributed to the actual release process.) I think that we really need to get releases out more frequently--that needs to become a higher priority. I don't think it is even worth the trouble to maintain a maintenance branch at all. It adds quite a bit of complexity to the development and release process--every time a bug is found, the fix has to be developed on maintenance, committed and pushed, checked on master, and propagated to master. It's not worth it. The differences between master and maintenance are normally not large enough to justify keeping them separate, given our very constrained people-time resources.
Note that a release doesn't have to be made from master HEAD; git branching is extremely flexible, so at any time, one can make a branch from any point on the tree, do some checking and adjustment, and release it. Where we get into difficulty and waste time is in trying to maintain a separate maintenance branch for a long period. We just don't have the resources to do this well; and we don't really need to do it at all.
Eric
On 06/01/2011 08:26 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
On 06/01/2011 02:10 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
I am testing the doc builds on v1.0.x when I noticed that it seems to
think that it is version 1.1.0. Sure enough, somehow
lib/matplotlib/__init__.py has __version__ defined as '1.1.0'.
Meanwhile, I can't seem to finish a doc build on the v1.0.x branch,
but I could with my docfix/smalltypos branch.Anybody have any clues what went wrong?
Thanks,
Ben Root
Actually, there are plenty of differences between v1.0.x and master. We have a number of new features that are baking right now (animations, for example). I have personally made a number of changes with mplot3d that, in some cases, were too risky to apply to v1.0.x and I just wanted them to sit in the official development branch rather than in the stable branch. Also, because there is not much of downstream activity to the repos, I think many of the packagers depend upon the bugfixes we apply to the maintenance branches. I am hesitant to change development policies without a clear consideration for downstream.
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it still works fine. Most of the issues is really limited to svn → git transitions and understanding how git works. I will agree that it is possible that the v1.0.x branch might be damaged beyond repair. I am not enough of a git expert to know one way or another.
As for the comment about getting releases out faster, this contradicts your assertion that we don’t have the manpower to take care of the maintenance branch. We do need better planning for milestones and goals, but I don’t want to push out a release until it is ready. In particular, I think a good rule of thumb for the v1.1.0 release should be to have all the backends behaving the same (::cough:: macosx ::cough::), and to officially deprecate any backends that we can not continue to support (::cough:: Cairo ::cough::).
But that’s just my opinion.
Ben Root
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@…706…29…> wrote:
On 06/01/2011 08:26 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
Yes, it seems that the v1.0.x got hosed somehow back in early May. Eric
Firing did some spelunking and traced it to a push I made, but I’m not
sure what I did wrong, and I’m even less sure how to fix it. If someone
with more git-fu wants to investigate and repair it, that would be
fantastic, but I’m afraid to touch it myself.
Mike
Mike, all:
Suggestion: Let’s just abandon the v1.0.x branch, stabilize master, and
get a release out. (Easy for me to say–I have never contributed to the
actual release process.) I think that we really need to get releases
out more frequently–that needs to become a higher priority. I don’t
think it is even worth the trouble to maintain a maintenance branch at
all. It adds quite a bit of complexity to the development and release
process–every time a bug is found, the fix has to be developed on
maintenance, committed and pushed, checked on master, and propagated to
master. It’s not worth it. The differences between master and
maintenance are normally not large enough to justify keeping them
separate, given our very constrained people-time resources.
Note that a release doesn’t have to be made from master HEAD; git
branching is extremely flexible, so at any time, one can make a branch
from any point on the tree, do some checking and adjustment, and release
it. Where we get into difficulty and waste time is in trying to
maintain a separate maintenance branch for a long period. We just don’t
have the resources to do this well; and we don’t really need to do it at
all.
Eric
> Yes, it seems that the v1.0.x got hosed somehow back in early
May. Eric
> Firing did some spelunking and traced it to a push I made, but
I'm not
> sure what I did wrong, and I'm even less sure how to fix it. If
someone
> with more git-fu wants to investigate and repair it, that would be
> fantastic, but I'm afraid to touch it myself.
>
> MikeMike, all:
Suggestion: Let's just abandon the v1.0.x branch, stabilize master, and
get a release out. (Easy for me to say--I have never contributed to the
actual release process.) I think that we really need to get releases
out more frequently--that needs to become a higher priority. I don't
think it is even worth the trouble to maintain a maintenance branch at
all. It adds quite a bit of complexity to the development and release
process--every time a bug is found, the fix has to be developed on
maintenance, committed and pushed, checked on master, and propagated to
master. It's not worth it. The differences between master and
maintenance are normally not large enough to justify keeping them
separate, given our very constrained people-time resources.Note that a release doesn't have to be made from master HEAD; git
branching is extremely flexible, so at any time, one can make a branch
from any point on the tree, do some checking and adjustment, and release
it. Where we get into difficulty and waste time is in trying to
maintain a separate maintenance branch for a long period. We just don't
have the resources to do this well; and we don't really need to do it at
all.Eric
Actually, there are plenty of differences between v1.0.x and master. We
have a number of new features that are baking right now (animations, for
example). I have personally made a number of changes with mplot3d that,
Are you referring to animations.py? The last change in that file on master was 9 months ago.
in some cases, were too risky to apply to v1.0.x and I just wanted them
to sit in the official development branch rather than in the stable
branch. Also, because there is not much of downstream activity to the
repos, I think many of the packagers depend upon the bugfixes we apply
to the maintenance branches. I am hesitant to change development
policies without a clear consideration for downstream.
Do the packagers use the tip of the maintenance branch, or do they use the most recent release? If the former, then that bumps up the priority of keeping such a branch. If the latter, it bumps up the priority of having frequent high-quality releases, regardless of what they are called.
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge confusions, at least during the earlier days.)
still works fine. Most of the issues is really limited to svn --> git
transitions and understanding how git works. I will agree that it is
possible that the v1.0.x branch might be damaged beyond repair. I am
not enough of a git expert to know one way or another.As for the comment about getting releases out faster, this contradicts
your assertion that we don't have the manpower to take care of the
maintenance branch. We do need better planning for milestones and
I don't see the contradiction or inconsistency. I am not saying we *can't* keep a maintenance branch; I am saying it is not clear to me that it is worth the fuss to do so indefinitely, especially when it is infrequently released.
goals, but I don't want to push out a release until it is ready. In
particular, I think a good rule of thumb for the v1.1.0 release should
be to have *all* the backends behaving the same (::cough:: macosx
::cough::), and to officially deprecate any backends that we can not
So, all progress should be held hostage? This might work if we were a company, and could assign a programmer to a task. Given that we rely on volunteers, I don't think it is practical.
continue to support (::cough:: Cairo ::cough::).
And emf, and plain wx, and plain gtk, and fltkagg. (Many months ago I posted a query to matplotlib-users as to whether anyone was actually *using* fltkagg; there was no reply. Regarding Cairo: I don't know what its status is, but it always seemed like a potentially useful backup in case of an Agg meltdown.) But that would be a big change in mpl de facto policy, which has always been very liberal with respect to leaving decaying code in place (like mplot3d) in case someone eventually picks it up and pumps some life back into it. I have mixed thoughts about that; my general instinct would be to rip out such things, but John's liberal approach has actually worked quite well.
But that's just my opinion.
It's good to get some opinions aired, to see if we can figure out ways to improve mpl and its development process.
Eric
On 06/01/2011 09:07 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229... > <mailto:efiring@…229…>> wrote:
On 06/01/2011 08:26 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
Ben Root
> Yes, it seems that the v1.0.x got hosed somehow back in earlyMay. Eric> Firing did some spelunking and traced it to a push I made, butI'm not> sure what I did wrong, and I'm even less sure how to fix it. Ifsomeone> with more git-fu wants to investigate and repair it, that would be> fantastic, but I'm afraid to touch it myself.>> MikeMike, all:Suggestion: Let's just abandon the v1.0.x branch, stabilize master, andget a release out. (Easy for me to say--I have never contributed to theactual release process.) I think that we really need to get releasesout more frequently--that needs to become a higher priority. I don'tthink it is even worth the trouble to maintain a maintenance branch atall. It adds quite a bit of complexity to the development and releaseprocess--every time a bug is found, the fix has to be developed onmaintenance, committed and pushed, checked on master, and propagated tomaster. It's not worth it. The differences between master andmaintenance are normally not large enough to justify keeping themseparate, given our very constrained people-time resources.Note that a release doesn't have to be made from master HEAD; gitbranching is extremely flexible, so at any time, one can make a branchfrom any point on the tree, do some checking and adjustment, and releaseit. Where we get into difficulty and waste time is in trying tomaintain a separate maintenance branch for a long period. We just don'thave the resources to do this well; and we don't really need to do it atall.EricActually, there are plenty of differences between v1.0.x and master. We
have a number of new features that are baking right now (animations, for
example). I have personally made a number of changes with mplot3d that,
Are you referring to animations.py? The last change in that file on
master was 9 months ago.
Yeah… I guess we really haven’t exercised it. However, I know some of my existing animation code based on it is broken and I have spotted a few potential issues in parts of the code. However, Ryan May is currently on the finishing end of his Dissertation work (while I am only at the start of it), and I doubt we will get much more out of him for a few more months.
in some cases, were too risky to apply to v1.0.x and I just wanted them
to sit in the official development branch rather than in the stable
branch. Also, because there is not much of downstream activity to the
repos, I think many of the packagers depend upon the bugfixes we apply
to the maintenance branches. I am hesitant to change development
policies without a clear consideration for downstream.
Do the packagers use the tip of the maintenance branch, or do they use
the most recent release? If the former, then that bumps up the priority
of keeping such a branch. If the latter, it bumps up the priority of
having frequent high-quality releases, regardless of what they are called.
I think that is dependent upon the repo. It seems that Ubuntu tends to stay near the release, while I have seen some other repos stay very up to date (I forget which one I saw). However, many of the changes we make are bugfixes and then transition to feature changes.
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
confusions, at least during the earlier days.)
So, it appears we have difficulties with new technologies?
still works fine. Most of the issues is really limited to svn → git
transitions and understanding how git works. I will agree that it is
possible that the v1.0.x branch might be damaged beyond repair. I am
not enough of a git expert to know one way or another.
As for the comment about getting releases out faster, this contradicts
your assertion that we don’t have the manpower to take care of the
maintenance branch. We do need better planning for milestones and
I don’t see the contradiction or inconsistency. I am not saying we
can’t keep a maintenance branch; I am saying it is not clear to me
that it is worth the fuss to do so indefinitely, especially when it is
infrequently released.
Well, I never really saw it as indefinite. I thought it was defined as maintaining the current release. So, whenever we release v1.1.0, then we no longer work on v1.0.x and bugfixes go to v1.1.x branch. Seems pretty clear to me. So long as there is no snafus with the maintenance branch, then we should be fine with this procedure.
goals, but I don’t want to push out a release until it is ready. In
particular, I think a good rule of thumb for the v1.1.0 release should
be to have all the backends behaving the same (::cough:: macosx
::cough::), and to officially deprecate any backends that we can not
So, all progress should be held hostage? This might work if we were a
company, and could assign a programmer to a task. Given that we rely on
volunteers, I don’t think it is practical.
The bug fixes are still getting pushed out, and the next releases of the distros will have updated versions. I don’t want to put out half-working features that ultimately gets rejected by users because it wasn’t ready for primetime. However, I do see your point and I think this is even more evidence for a release manager. And to answer the next question – no, I simply will not have the time to do take that role (I am trying to get my contributions done now before I go into hermit mode again).
But that would be a big change in mpl de facto
policy, which has always been very liberal with respect to leaving
decaying code in place (like mplot3d)
Hey!
in case someone eventually picks
it up and pumps some life back into it.
Ah, ok, nevermind…
I have mixed thoughts about
that; my general instinct would be to rip out such things, but John’s
liberal approach has actually worked quite well.
I don’t like cruft either, but what I really don’t like is redundant cruft. For example, if tight_layout turns out to be useful, then I think that the mplsizer module should probably go.
But that’s just my opinion.
It’s good to get some opinions aired, to see if we can figure out ways
to improve mpl and its development process.
That’s my hope too.
Ben
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@…706…29…> wrote:
On 06/01/2011 09:07 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@…229… > > mailto:efiring@...229...> wrote:
On 06/01/2011 08:26 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
Hi,
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
confusions, at least during the earlier days.)
I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
1.0.x is extremely confusing.
I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
I like Pauli's edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
I've actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
example build here:
http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.
I've been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
project without much trouble; I've just been doing the occasional
cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.
Cheers,
Matthew
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
I have a simpler rule of thumb. When merging work to push to the
matplotlib repository: inspect the history graph before the merge,
perform the merge locally, and inspect the graph after the merge but
before the push. Inspecting the history graph doesn't take long. If
the graph doesn't look the way you anticipated (unexplained or
unexpected complexity), don't push to the matplotlib repo. If you are
unsure or want help, push to your personal fork and post to the
mailing list. If you don't know how the history graph should look
after the merge, you aren't ready to push that merge to the matplotlib
repo.
Darren
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@...149...> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
confusions, at least during the earlier days.)I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
Network Graph · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub
There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
1.0.x is extremely confusing.I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
I like Pauli's edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
I've actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
example build here:http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.I've been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
project without much trouble; I've just been doing the occasional
cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.
Hi,
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
confusions, at least during the earlier days.)I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
Network Graph · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub
There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
1.0.x is extremely confusing.
Agreed!
I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
Yes.
I like Pauli's edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
I've actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
example build here:
I will have to take a look; mpl did pull some version of gitwash into its doc build.
http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
Thanks, I will take a look.
Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.
I think one of the problems is that documentation such as the Git book and at least early versions of gitwash, if I remember correctly, emphasize workflow for people who do not access the central repo directly. There has been much discussion on the lists of procedure for those who do push to central repos, but I am not sure to what extent it has gotten condensed down into a sufficiently simple set of rules and examples in the standard documentation. Maybe you and Pauli have done that now.
I've been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
project without much trouble; I've just been doing the occasional
cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.
In a way, this illustrates the difficulty: you describe a procedure for working with a maintenance branch that is completely different from the one we have been using (apart from the errors). What we have been doing is initiating bug fixes in the maintenance branch and then merging that branch to master. I'm sure either way can work fine, if one doesn't make mistakes. I'm not sure what the relative merits of the two methods are, in terms of simplicity, clarity, and robustness against errors. I think they result in very different graphs, correct? With your approach, the maintenance branch and master are separate lines, while with our approach, the merges keep pulling the branches together in the graph, even though their contents are steadily getting farther apart.
Eric
On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing<efiring@...229...> wrote:
Cheers,
Matthew
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Darren Dale <dsdale24@...149...> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@...149...> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
confusions, at least during the earlier days.)I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
Network Graph · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub
There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
1.0.x is extremely confusing.I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
I like Pauli's edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
I've actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
example build here:http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.I've been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
project without much trouble; I've just been doing the occasional
cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.I have a simpler rule of thumb. When merging work to push to the
matplotlib repository: inspect the history graph before the merge,
perform the merge locally, and inspect the graph after the merge but
before the push. Inspecting the history graph doesn't take long. If
the graph doesn't look the way you anticipated (unexplained or
unexpected complexity), don't push to the matplotlib repo. If you are
unsure or want help, push to your personal fork and post to the
mailing list. If you don't know how the history graph should look
after the merge, you aren't ready to push that merge to the matplotlib
repo.
Sounds right to me 
Pauli actually has the same rule, I discovered:
http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/maintainer_workflow.html#check-the-history
See you,
Matthew
Hi,
Hi,
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
confusions, at least during the earlier days.)I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
Network Graph · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub
There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
1.0.x is extremely confusing.Agreed!
I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
Yes.
I like Pauli's edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
I've actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
example build here:I will have to take a look; mpl did pull some version of gitwash into
its doc build.http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
Thanks, I will take a look.
If you like what you see, then the 'gitwash_dumper.py' script will
pull a new copy into your repo...
If you don't, then I'd love suggestions for improvements.
Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.I think one of the problems is that documentation such as the Git book
and at least early versions of gitwash, if I remember correctly,
emphasize workflow for people who do not access the central repo
directly. There has been much discussion on the lists of procedure for
those who do push to central repos, but I am not sure to what extent it
has gotten condensed down into a sufficiently simple set of rules and
examples in the standard documentation. Maybe you and Pauli have done
that now.
That's quite right, we did more or less assume that the maintainers
were git experts, and yes, Pauli did fix that to some extent. The
result, as ported back by me, is this page, which is new, and needs
expanding:
http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/maintainer_workflow.html
I've been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
project without much trouble; I've just been doing the occasional
cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.In a way, this illustrates the difficulty: you describe a procedure for
working with a maintenance branch that is completely different from the
one we have been using (apart from the errors). What we have been doing
is initiating bug fixes in the maintenance branch and then merging that
branch to master. I'm sure either way can work fine, if one doesn't
make mistakes. I'm not sure what the relative merits of the two methods
are, in terms of simplicity, clarity, and robustness against errors. I
think they result in very different graphs, correct? With your
approach, the maintenance branch and master are separate lines, while
with our approach, the merges keep pulling the branches together in the
graph, even though their contents are steadily getting farther apart.
I must confess that my git fu is not 10/10, but to me the idea of
_merging_ the maintenance branch into trunk is very confusing. I
mean, the trees should increasingly diverge, surely, so there will be
more and more stuff you don't want to see back in trunk. At the
moment, you have to trust git magic to correctly leave out the commits
you don't want...
See you,
Matthew
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing<efiring@...229...> wrote:
While this is all very important and we should definitely come to an agreement about this, this still doesn’t solve my issue at hand. I can not build the docs in the v1.0.x branch, therefore we can not push out a revision to the docs on sourceforge. Meanwhile, our website still has bad links and is pointing users to download version 1.0.0 instead of version 1.0.1 (which may explain why we still see some old bugs on the lists every now and then). What do we want to do about my pull request for the docs?
Ben Root
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@…149…> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@…229…> wrote:
On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing<efiring@…229…> wrote:
The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think it
(I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
confusions, at least during the earlier days.)
I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
1.0.x is extremely confusing.
Agreed!
I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
Yes.
I like Pauli’s edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
I’ve actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
example build here:
I will have to take a look; mpl did pull some version of gitwash into
its doc build.
http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
Thanks, I will take a look.
If you like what you see, then the ‘gitwash_dumper.py’ script will
pull a new copy into your repo…
If you don’t, then I’d love suggestions for improvements.
Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.
I think one of the problems is that documentation such as the Git book
and at least early versions of gitwash, if I remember correctly,
emphasize workflow for people who do not access the central repo
directly. There has been much discussion on the lists of procedure for
those who do push to central repos, but I am not sure to what extent it
has gotten condensed down into a sufficiently simple set of rules and
examples in the standard documentation. Maybe you and Pauli have done
that now.
That’s quite right, we did more or less assume that the maintainers
were git experts, and yes, Pauli did fix that to some extent. The
result, as ported back by me, is this page, which is new, and needs
expanding:
http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/maintainer_workflow.html
I’ve been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
project without much trouble; I’ve just been doing the occasional
cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.
In a way, this illustrates the difficulty: you describe a procedure for
working with a maintenance branch that is completely different from the
one we have been using (apart from the errors). What we have been doing
is initiating bug fixes in the maintenance branch and then merging that
branch to master. I’m sure either way can work fine, if one doesn’t
make mistakes. I’m not sure what the relative merits of the two methods
are, in terms of simplicity, clarity, and robustness against errors. I
think they result in very different graphs, correct? With your
approach, the maintenance branch and master are separate lines, while
with our approach, the merges keep pulling the branches together in the
graph, even though their contents are steadily getting farther apart.
I must confess that my git fu is not 10/10, but to me the idea of
merging the maintenance branch into trunk is very confusing. I
mean, the trees should increasingly diverge, surely, so there will be
more and more stuff you don’t want to see back in trunk. At the
moment, you have to trust git magic to correctly leave out the commits
you don’t want…
See you,
Matthew
Mike,
Yes, it seems that the v1.0.x got hosed somehow back in early May. Eric
Firing did some spelunking and traced it to a push I made, but I'm not sure
what I did wrong, and I'm even less sure how to fix it. If someone with
more git-fu wants to investigate and repair it, that would be fantastic, but
I'm afraid to touch it myself.
I'm taking a guess here: gtk_crash was branched off of master, but
perhaps the pull request was registered against the v1.0.x branch. In
any case, gtk_crash was merged with v1.0.x. I've done something
similar myself, but I always merge into a clean local copy of v1.0.x
or master and inspect the history graph, so I noticed my mistake
before I actually pushed the changes.
I have a little time now, maybe something can be done to correct it.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Michael Droettboom <mdroe@...31...> wrote:
Hold tight, lets see if anything can be done to back out the change.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@...553...> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@...149...> > wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing<efiring@...229...> >> >> wrote:
>>>> The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think
>>>> it
>>>
>>> (I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
>>> confusions, at least during the earlier days.)
>>
>> I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
>>
>> Network Graph · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub
>>
>> There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
>> 1.0.x is extremely confusing.
>
> Agreed!
>
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> I like Pauli's edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
>> I've actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
>> example build here:
>
> I will have to take a look; mpl did pull some version of gitwash into
> its doc build.
>
>>
>> http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
>
> Thanks, I will take a look.If you like what you see, then the 'gitwash_dumper.py' script will
pull a new copy into your repo...If you don't, then I'd love suggestions for improvements.
>> Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
>> history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.
>
> I think one of the problems is that documentation such as the Git book
> and at least early versions of gitwash, if I remember correctly,
> emphasize workflow for people who do not access the central repo
> directly. There has been much discussion on the lists of procedure for
> those who do push to central repos, but I am not sure to what extent it
> has gotten condensed down into a sufficiently simple set of rules and
> examples in the standard documentation. Maybe you and Pauli have done
> that now.That's quite right, we did more or less assume that the maintainers
were git experts, and yes, Pauli did fix that to some extent. The
result, as ported back by me, is this page, which is new, and needs
expanding:http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/maintainer_workflow.html
>>
>> I've been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
>> project without much trouble; I've just been doing the occasional
>> cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.
>
> In a way, this illustrates the difficulty: you describe a procedure for
> working with a maintenance branch that is completely different from the
> one we have been using (apart from the errors). What we have been doing
> is initiating bug fixes in the maintenance branch and then merging that
> branch to master. I'm sure either way can work fine, if one doesn't
> make mistakes. I'm not sure what the relative merits of the two methods
> are, in terms of simplicity, clarity, and robustness against errors. I
> think they result in very different graphs, correct? With your
> approach, the maintenance branch and master are separate lines, while
> with our approach, the merges keep pulling the branches together in the
> graph, even though their contents are steadily getting farther apart.I must confess that my git fu is not 10/10, but to me the idea of
_merging_ the maintenance branch into trunk is very confusing. I
mean, the trees should increasingly diverge, surely, so there will be
more and more stuff you don't want to see back in trunk. At the
moment, you have to trust git magic to correctly leave out the commits
you don't want...See you,
Matthew
While this is all very important and we should definitely come to an
agreement about this, this still doesn't solve my issue at hand. I can not
build the docs in the v1.0.x branch, therefore we can not push out a
revision to the docs on sourceforge. Meanwhile, our website still has bad
links and is pointing users to download version 1.0.0 instead of version
1.0.1 (which may explain why we still see some old bugs on the lists every
now and then). What do we want to do about my pull request for the docs?
I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:
* "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
* redo pull request 103
* cherry-pick the following commits off of the v1.0.x branch:
- 069c21d
- 53f8139e
- de18d9ab2
- 91e7d980
- 0cc213b4fa
- e7f1e83ace
- 5c968a0ecdd
That should bring the v1.0.x-cleanup branch back to where we thought
it would be. I'll post the result in my fork as soon as it is ready,
and request comment. At that point, we should decide if we want to
rename it v1.0.x and force push, or rename it v1.0.x-maint (or
whatever) and delete the current v1.0.x branch.
Pauli, Jouni, any comments?
Darren
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Darren Dale <dsdale24@...149...> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@...553...> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@...149...> >> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 12:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Eric Firing<efiring@...229...> >>> >> wrote:
>>>> The current practice worked very nicely with SVN (IMHO), and I think
>>>> it
>>>
>>> (I recall that Mike had to rescue us more than once from svnmerge
>>> confusions, at least during the earlier days.)
>>
>> I was just idly looking at the matplotlib network graph:
>>
>> Network Graph · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub
>>
>> There seem to be lots of branches and cross merges ; the history of
>> 1.0.x is extremely confusing.
>
> Agreed!
>
>>
>> I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to review git workflow?
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> I like Pauli's edits to the numpy gitwash docs in numpy for this.
>> I've actually just merged these back into the gitwash main docs,
>> example build here:
>
> I will have to take a look; mpl did pull some version of gitwash into
> its doc build.
>
>>
>> http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/git_development.html
>
> Thanks, I will take a look.If you like what you see, then the 'gitwash_dumper.py' script will
pull a new copy into your repo...If you don't, then I'd love suggestions for improvements.
>> Maybe the overall point is that git does require some thought to
>> history, and some rules-of-work, to avoid confusion.
>
> I think one of the problems is that documentation such as the Git book
> and at least early versions of gitwash, if I remember correctly,
> emphasize workflow for people who do not access the central repo
> directly. There has been much discussion on the lists of procedure for
> those who do push to central repos, but I am not sure to what extent it
> has gotten condensed down into a sufficiently simple set of rules and
> examples in the standard documentation. Maybe you and Pauli have done
> that now.That's quite right, we did more or less assume that the maintainers
were git experts, and yes, Pauli did fix that to some extent. The
result, as ported back by me, is this page, which is new, and needs
expanding:http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash/maintainer_workflow.html
>>
>> I've been managing a maintenance branch for my much smaller nibabel
>> project without much trouble; I've just been doing the occasional
>> cherry-pick and rebase from trunk for bugfixes.
>
> In a way, this illustrates the difficulty: you describe a procedure for
> working with a maintenance branch that is completely different from the
> one we have been using (apart from the errors). What we have been doing
> is initiating bug fixes in the maintenance branch and then merging that
> branch to master. I'm sure either way can work fine, if one doesn't
> make mistakes. I'm not sure what the relative merits of the two methods
> are, in terms of simplicity, clarity, and robustness against errors. I
> think they result in very different graphs, correct? With your
> approach, the maintenance branch and master are separate lines, while
> with our approach, the merges keep pulling the branches together in the
> graph, even though their contents are steadily getting farther apart.I must confess that my git fu is not 10/10, but to me the idea of
_merging_ the maintenance branch into trunk is very confusing. I
mean, the trees should increasingly diverge, surely, so there will be
more and more stuff you don't want to see back in trunk. At the
moment, you have to trust git magic to correctly leave out the commits
you don't want...See you,
Matthew
While this is all very important and we should definitely come to an
agreement about this, this still doesn't solve my issue at hand. I can not
build the docs in the v1.0.x branch, therefore we can not push out a
revision to the docs on sourceforge. Meanwhile, our website still has bad
links and is pointing users to download version 1.0.0 instead of version
1.0.1 (which may explain why we still see some old bugs on the lists every
now and then). What do we want to do about my pull request for the docs?Hold tight, lets see if anything can be done to back out the change.
[...]
I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:* "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
* redo pull request 103
* cherry-pick the following commits off of the v1.0.x branch:
- 069c21d
- 53f8139e
- de18d9ab2
- 91e7d980
- 0cc213b4fa
- e7f1e83ace
- 5c968a0ecddThat should bring the v1.0.x-cleanup branch back to where we thought
it would be. I'll post the result in my fork as soon as it is ready,
and request comment. At that point, we should decide if we want to
rename it v1.0.x and force push, or rename it v1.0.x-maint (or
whatever) and delete the current v1.0.x branch.Pauli, Jouni, any comments?
Darren
Darren,
That sounds very encouraging. If it is successful, I think we should use a different name and obliterate the current v1.0.x. If I understand correctly, doing a forced push instead would leave us open to having the repair undone. I don't see any advantage to it; but my git-ability is not high.
Going forward, is there any good reason to retain all the old branches (transforms, 0.91.x etc.)? Don't the release tags provide adequate access to those branches? My sense is that merging them into master was not good from the standpoint of being able to read the graph and see what is really derived from what; but I don't know exactly what can be done about it. They certainly clutter up the output of "git branch -a" to no useful effect.
Following along this line, does it perhaps make sense in the future to use cherry-picking instead of merging for propagating bug fixes between a maintenance or release branch and master? My uneducated sense is that it would leave a less confusing graph, and be less likely to result in errors.
Eric
On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
[...]
I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:* "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
* redo pull request 103
* cherry-pick the following commits off of the v1.0.x branch:
- 069c21d
- 53f8139e
- de18d9ab2
- 91e7d980
- 0cc213b4fa
- e7f1e83ace
- 5c968a0ecddThat should bring the v1.0.x-cleanup branch back to where we thought
it would be. I'll post the result in my fork as soon as it is ready,
and request comment. At that point, we should decide if we want to
rename it v1.0.x and force push, or rename it v1.0.x-maint (or
whatever) and delete the current v1.0.x branch.Pauli, Jouni, any comments?
Darren
Darren,
That sounds very encouraging. If it is successful, I think we should
use a different name and obliterate the current v1.0.x. If I understand
correctly, doing a forced push instead would leave us open to having the
repair undone. I don't see any advantage to it; but my git-ability is
not high.
I just pushed a v1.0.x-cleanup branch to
GitHub - ddale/matplotlib . The next step would be to push
it to v1.0.x-maint, and then merge v1.0.x-maint into master with
--strategy=ours. At that point, I think we could delete the old v1.0.x
branch, but I'd like to get a harrumph from another dev first.
Going forward, is there any good reason to retain all the old branches
(transforms, 0.91.x etc.)?
I don't think we need the transforms branch. I kept it just for the
sake of completeness during the svn->git migration.
Don't the release tags provide adequate
access to those branches? My sense is that merging them into master was
not good from the standpoint of being able to read the graph and see
what is really derived from what; but I don't know exactly what can be
done about it. They certainly clutter up the output of "git branch -a"
to no useful effect.
There was actually a good reason for doing it this way. Each older
maintenance branch was merged into the next newer one, and it was done
with --strategy=ours (which basically means that any changes were
ignored during the merge). We did this so that if someone applied a
critical set of patches to an earlier maintenance branch, say 0.99.x,
and wanted to merge it into v1.0.x, and then into master, it would be
easy to do so without unintentionally pulling all of the other changes
between 0.99.x and 1.0.x (for example) along with it.
Following along this line, does it perhaps make sense in the future to
use cherry-picking instead of merging for propagating bug fixes between
a maintenance or release branch and master? My uneducated sense is that
it would leave a less confusing graph, and be less likely to result in
errors.
I would prefer to continue merging. I think its just a matter of
getting in the habit of inspecting the history graph. But that's just
my opinion.
Thanks by the way for the pointer to qgit, I think it is much nicer than gitk.
Darren
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
Actually, I feel fairly confident that this is a reasonable fix. I
just pushed v1.0.x-maint, I pushed v1.0.x to my personal clone as a
backup, and I deleted v1.0.x from the matplotlib repository.
Ben, would you please rebase your mplot3d/minor_errors branch onto the
new v1.0.x-maint branch?
I'll post an announcement on mpl-dev about the change in maintenance branch.
Darren
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Darren Dale <dsdale24@...149...> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
[...]I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:* "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
* redo pull request 103
* cherry-pick the following commits off of the v1.0.x branch:
- 069c21d
- 53f8139e
- de18d9ab2
- 91e7d980
- 0cc213b4fa
- e7f1e83ace
- 5c968a0ecddThat should bring the v1.0.x-cleanup branch back to where we thought
it would be. I'll post the result in my fork as soon as it is ready,
and request comment. At that point, we should decide if we want to
rename it v1.0.x and force push, or rename it v1.0.x-maint (or
whatever) and delete the current v1.0.x branch.Pauli, Jouni, any comments?
Darren
Darren,
That sounds very encouraging. If it is successful, I think we should
use a different name and obliterate the current v1.0.x. If I understand
correctly, doing a forced push instead would leave us open to having the
repair undone. I don't see any advantage to it; but my git-ability is
not high.I just pushed a v1.0.x-cleanup branch to
GitHub - ddale/matplotlib . The next step would be to push
it to v1.0.x-maint, and then merge v1.0.x-maint into master with
--strategy=ours. At that point, I think we could delete the old v1.0.x
branch, but I'd like to get a harrumph from another dev first.Going forward, is there any good reason to retain all the old branches
(transforms, 0.91.x etc.)?I don't think we need the transforms branch. I kept it just for the
sake of completeness during the svn->git migration.Don't the release tags provide adequate
access to those branches? My sense is that merging them into master was
not good from the standpoint of being able to read the graph and see
what is really derived from what; but I don't know exactly what can be
done about it. They certainly clutter up the output of "git branch -a"
to no useful effect.There was actually a good reason for doing it this way. Each older
maintenance branch was merged into the next newer one, and it was done
with --strategy=ours (which basically means that any changes were
ignored during the merge). We did this so that if someone applied a
critical set of patches to an earlier maintenance branch, say 0.99.x,
and wanted to merge it into v1.0.x, and then into master, it would be
easy to do so without unintentionally pulling all of the other changes
between 0.99.x and 1.0.x (for example) along with it.Following along this line, does it perhaps make sense in the future to
use cherry-picking instead of merging for propagating bug fixes between
a maintenance or release branch and master? My uneducated sense is that
it would leave a less confusing graph, and be less likely to result in
errors.I would prefer to continue merging. I think its just a matter of
getting in the habit of inspecting the history graph. But that's just
my opinion.Thanks by the way for the pointer to qgit, I think it is much nicer than gitk.
[...]
I had another look at the history after rereading Pauli's email. I'm
going to try the following on a temporary v1.0.x-cleanup branch:* "git reset --hard 0e6dad5230"
* redo pull request 103
* cherry-pick the following commits off of the v1.0.x branch:
- 069c21d
- 53f8139e
- de18d9ab2
- 91e7d980
- 0cc213b4fa
- e7f1e83ace
- 5c968a0ecddThat should bring the v1.0.x-cleanup branch back to where we thought
it would be. I'll post the result in my fork as soon as it is ready,
and request comment. At that point, we should decide if we want to
rename it v1.0.x and force push, or rename it v1.0.x-maint (or
whatever) and delete the current v1.0.x branch.Pauli, Jouni, any comments?
Darren
Darren,
That sounds very encouraging. If it is successful, I think we should
use a different name and obliterate the current v1.0.x. If I understand
correctly, doing a forced push instead would leave us open to having the
repair undone. I don't see any advantage to it; but my git-ability is
not high.I just pushed a v1.0.x-cleanup branch to
GitHub - ddale/matplotlib . The next step would be to push
it to v1.0.x-maint, and then merge v1.0.x-maint into master with
--strategy=ours. At that point, I think we could delete the old v1.0.x
branch, but I'd like to get a harrumph from another dev first.
Dale,
Thank you.
Going forward, is there any good reason to retain all the old branches
(transforms, 0.91.x etc.)?I don't think we need the transforms branch. I kept it just for the
sake of completeness during the svn->git migration.Don't the release tags provide adequate
access to those branches? My sense is that merging them into master was
not good from the standpoint of being able to read the graph and see
what is really derived from what; but I don't know exactly what can be
done about it. They certainly clutter up the output of "git branch -a"
to no useful effect.There was actually a good reason for doing it this way. Each older
I understand the rationale, but...
maintenance branch was merged into the next newer one, and it was done
with --strategy=ours (which basically means that any changes were
ignored during the merge). We did this so that if someone applied a
which means that it is a fundamentally misleading merge--a merge in name only, not an indicator of what is in a given branch.
critical set of patches to an earlier maintenance branch, say 0.99.x,
and wanted to merge it into v1.0.x, and then into master, it would be
easy to do so without unintentionally pulling all of the other changes
between 0.99.x and 1.0.x (for example) along with it.
I think the likelihood of anyone ever actually doing this is near zilch; we don't maintain old branches. And for the single current maintenance branch at any given time, cherry-picking bug fixes from maintenance to master or the reverse seems to me more explicit, less mysterious, and less likely to have unintended consequences than merging.
Following along this line, does it perhaps make sense in the future to
use cherry-picking instead of merging for propagating bug fixes between
a maintenance or release branch and master? My uneducated sense is that
it would leave a less confusing graph, and be less likely to result in
errors.I would prefer to continue merging. I think its just a matter of
getting in the habit of inspecting the history graph. But that's just
my opinion.
I still don't agree. It looks to me like numpy is using the cherry-pick approach, not the merge approach, and the result is that each branch has a reasonably linear history that one can actually follow by eye, and easily see exactly what has been done. Compare numpy:
http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu/hgstage/numpy_from_git/graph/9264?revcount=240
to mpl:
http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu/hgstage/mpl_from_git/graph/6855?revcount=240
Even without the foulup, I think you would see that the merges from maintenance branches into subsequent branches and into master make it very hard to figure out what has actually been done on any given branch. Undoubtedly one *can* figure it out, as apparently you have just done; but it is not immediately clear from the graph.
Eric
On 06/02/2011 12:35 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing<efiring@...229...> wrote:
On 06/02/2011 11:48 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
Thanks by the way for the pointer to qgit, I think it is much nicer than gitk.
Darren
Going forward, is there any good reason to retain all the old branches
(transforms, 0.91.x etc.)?I don't think we need the transforms branch. I kept it just for the
sake of completeness during the svn->git migration.Don't the release tags provide adequate
access to those branches? My sense is that merging them into master was
not good from the standpoint of being able to read the graph and see
what is really derived from what; but I don't know exactly what can be
done about it. They certainly clutter up the output of "git branch -a"
to no useful effect.There was actually a good reason for doing it this way. Each older
I understand the rationale, but...
maintenance branch was merged into the next newer one, and it was done
with --strategy=ours (which basically means that any changes were
ignored during the merge). We did this so that if someone applied awhich means that it is a fundamentally misleading merge--a merge in name
only, not an indicator of what is in a given branch.
No, it meant that all of the actual merges that we intended to do had
already been done using svnmerge. But svn2git wasn't able to capture
all of those relationships, so instead we did what we could at the
time of the conversion.
critical set of patches to an earlier maintenance branch, say 0.99.x,
and wanted to merge it into v1.0.x, and then into master, it would be
easy to do so without unintentionally pulling all of the other changes
between 0.99.x and 1.0.x (for example) along with it.I think the likelihood of anyone ever actually doing this is near zilch;
we don't maintain old branches.
aside from 1.0.x...
And for the single current maintenance
branch at any given time, cherry-picking bug fixes from maintenance to
master or the reverse seems to me more explicit, less mysterious, and
less likely to have unintended consequences than merging.
I understand your position.
Following along this line, does it perhaps make sense in the future to
use cherry-picking instead of merging for propagating bug fixes between
a maintenance or release branch and master? My uneducated sense is that
it would leave a less confusing graph, and be less likely to result in
errors.I would prefer to continue merging. I think its just a matter of
getting in the habit of inspecting the history graph. But that's just
my opinion.I still don't agree. It looks to me like numpy is using the cherry-pick
approach, not the merge approach, and the result is that each branch has
a reasonably linear history that one can actually follow by eye, and
easily see exactly what has been done. Compare numpy:http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu/hgstage/numpy_from_git/graph/9264?revcount=240
to mpl:
http://currents.soest.hawaii.edu/hgstage/mpl_from_git/graph/6855?revcount=240
Numpy appears to be applying all of their changes on master, and then
cherry picking changes to apply to the maintenance branch.
Even without the foulup, I think you would see that the merges from
maintenance branches into subsequent branches and into master make it
very hard to figure out what has actually been done on any given branch.
I strongly disagree. The only reason you get cleaner history graphs
with cherry picking is because it doesn't graph the cherry picks! If
you want to know what has been merged, you have to inspect the commit
message in one branch and match it up with the commit message in
another branch. How does that make it easier to figure out what has
been done on any given branch?
Undoubtedly one *can* figure it out, as apparently you have just done;
but it is not immediately clear from the graph.
I have another suggestion, relating to somebody's (your?) suggestion
that we make more frequent releases. Development would be more robust
if we were all branching from a commonly acknowledged reference point.
For example, that might be v1.0.1 on the maintenance branch. The
history graph would probably be cleaner as well. Then when a branch X
is merged into maint, maybe we should be merging branch X into master
as well, rather than merging v1.0.x into master. That would make it
clearer what was actually being merged. Then, when v1.0.2 was tagged,
we merge that into master (perhaps with strategy=ours if appropriate),
and that becomes the new commonly acknowledged reference point on the
master branch.
Darren
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote:
On 06/02/2011 12:35 PM, Darren Dale wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Eric Firing<efiring@...229...> wrote: