Re: Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 6, 2009, 23:36 UTC
Message-ID: <7vfx7nekuf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <fabb9a1e0912060223h148a67b0q589b8461dae6330e@mail.gmail.com>

Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes:

>>  - Merge today's 'master' to sr/remote-hg (optional);
>
> I'm not sure why this is though? (no objections against it, I just
> don't understand the motivation)

It would make sense if you use 1.6.6 features in your new series (as the forkpoint of sr/vcs-helper is beginning to look a tad stale), but otherwise unnecessary; that is the reason why I said it is "(optional)" and it is up to what is in the remote-hg patch.

Show 11 quoted lines

>>  - Create an unstable sr/pu-remote-hg branch that:
>>
>>   - is reset to the tip of sr/remote-hg at the beginning of the day;
>>   - merges the day's sr/gfi-options on top;
>>   - re-applies patches to implement Hg interoperation on top of the
>>     result.
>
> Ok, that does make sense, how would I send out patches for review from
> this unstable branch though? (since others would not have the required
> merges etc) I reckon it would be necessary to publish sr/pu-remote-hg
> somewhere?

I was thinking about carrying it myself (perhaps with help from you in conflict resolution as necessary) when I wrote it, but if you want me to pull from your repository somewhere e.g. repo.or.cz, that would also be fine.