git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: rebasing merges

From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date
Sep 23, 2008, 09:11 UTC
Message-ID
<48D8B2C1.5070800@op5.se>
In-Reply-To
<20080923040302.c4d0d33b.stephen@exigencecorp.com>
Stephen Haberman wrote:
Show 49 quoted lines
>>>  ---A--B--C--D           <-- origin/stable
>>>      \       |
>>>       E--F   |           <-- origin/topica
>>>           \  |
>>>              g--h        <-- topica
>>>
>>> All the upper case commits have been published to origin. Other
>>> devs, etc., know about them, their hashes are in the bug tracking
>>> system.
>>>
>>> I'm bringing topica up to date, but with a merge because I have
>>> published history already on topica, so I merge stable and get a
>>> new merge commit: g. And maybe make another change: h.
>>>
>> Why do you merge stable at this point?
> 
> Good question--I appreciate the sanity check.
> 
> I merged stable because we had a new release of the software. E.g.
> A=1.0, B=1.1, C=1.2, and finally D=1.3.
> 
> So, topica is a new feature, "Add widgets/whatever", but it's not ready
> for stable (production) yet, so, yes, I think it is a topic branch.
> 
> However, D=1.4 is now out the door, I've had two commits E and F on
> topica that I had already committed and pushed out for code review, our
> email list, and our bug tracker, and now, post-1.4, qa wants to see
> topica up and running to see if it's good enough to go into the next
> release.
> 
> If our deployment guy pushes out F, qa is going to (and did) complain
> that they're not seeing the latest features from 1.4 in topica.
> 
> As you said, integration testing.
> 
> Okay, so I merge g, however, I really want to push it back out so that
> the deployment guy can push it to qa (he would rather not resolve my
> conflicts by making his own local g). And even if I did the deployment
> myself, locally against g, I would prefer to share g in case another
> dev working on the same topic gets feedback about funkiness from qa and
> would like to see the code as it is in qa. E.g.: g.
> 
> I can appreciate that if I was doing integration testing all by myself,
> with only automated tests, I could throw g away. However, even then, I
> would prefer to push g out and let our integration server run the tests
> for me.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable?
> 

It sounds very reasonable indeed, but then I don't understand why you held off pushing the merge.

That's beside the point though, as I firmly believe git should be more helpful in this situation. If "git rebase -i -p" doesn't help you fix the problems, I'll see what I can do to help.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231
Previous: Stephen HabermanNext: Stephen Haberman
Message 11 of 14 in “rebasing merges”
  1. Stephen HabermanSep 22, 2008
  2. Stephen HabermanSep 23, 2008
  3. Johannes SixtSep 23, 2008
  4. Samuel TardieuSep 23, 2008
  5. Johannes SixtSep 23, 2008
  6. Andreas EricssonSep 23, 2008
  7. Stephen HabermanSep 23, 2008
  8. Johannes SixtSep 23, 2008
  9. Andreas EricssonSep 23, 2008
  10. Stephen HabermanSep 23, 2008
  11. Andreas EricssonSep 23, 2008
  12. Stephen HabermanSep 23, 2008
  13. Stephen HabermanSep 23, 2008
  14. SZEDER GáborSep 23, 2008

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.