Re: fast-forward only policy

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:33:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:52:54PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:10:42PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> >> > IMO you should make a good argument to switch, not the other way around.
> >> >>
> >> >> What I'm proposing makes things simpler. Do I need to make a good
> >> >> argument of why simple things are good?
> >> >
> >> > You gave as reason 'you just switched your SCM and it's the best time to
> >> > do that'. That is what I was referring to. Now you give another argument
> >> > to the same question.
> >>
> >> There are many reasons, I thought it was obvious that 'stable' is
> >> simpler than '1-2'.
> >
> > Not to me when there are multiple stable branches. It then just is
> > latest-stable.
> 
> To me one would be 'stable' the other one would be 'maint'. If you are
> going to argue that there could be 3 stable branches at the same time
> then I would say: 'stable' (1-4), '1-2' and '1-0' make sense, but as
> soon as the branch stops being active it should be deleted.

Multiple stable things? Just confusing. Don't agree with deleting branch
names.

> >> >> To be clear on what I'm proposing: there's no need to add 'project' to
> >> >> branch names when you already know the project ('1-2' is fine). But
> >> >> going into the next level, there's no need to have '1-2', '1-4' and
> >> >> '1-0', 'stable' and 'master' are more than enough.
> >> >
> >> > Very strong -1 to 'stable'.
> >> >
> >> > Can we rename branches? What breaks? Gentoo?
> >>
> >> Gentoo is using your tarball releases. Or what do you mean?
> >
> > They complain when stuff isn't branched/tagged properly. Forgot which.
> 
> Well, ask them. I think they would be perfectly fine with a 'stable'

I'm not going to do your work.

'I think'... we must be sure.

> branch. That way they don't need to update their ebuild each time
> there's a new major GNOME release.
> 
> > You didn't address the rest of my question.
> 
> I'm not sure what exactly you mean:
> Can we rename branches? <- Yes
> What breaks? <- Huh?

Is "What breaks" really that unclear?

> Gentoo? <- Huh?
> 
> >> >> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
> >> >> would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'?
> >> >
> >> > 'stable' was already discussed. Within GNOME 2.20, 2.22, 2.24, 2.26 etc
> >> > are stable. So it isn't clear.
> >>
> >> The latest one, of course.
> >>
> >> You don't need branches for targets that are not going to move.
> >> Branches are for moving targets, tags are for fixed ones.
> >
> > That is just confusing. Really, I don't see why you don't see this.
> 
> That's just how git works: branches and tags are mere pointers.
> There's no difference in the object storage, the only difference is
> logical, you use branches in a way, tags in another way.

Don't care about Git workings. I care about understanding a branch name.
Deleting branches sounds really bad (aside from purely symbolical
'stable').

> You can do stuff like:

I don't understand Git.

-- 
Regards,
Olav