El 4/6/2008, a las 12:02, David escribió:

quoted text
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>  
> wrote:
>> El 4/6/2008, a las 10:30, David escribió:
>>
>>> Thanks :-) This still isn't what I had in mind (see my earlier post
>>> with examples), but I realise now, thanks to your post, that I can
>>> probably do it like this:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Sounds like it would definitely work but it also sounds like a lot of
>> repetitive "busy work"[1] which could be avoided by using finer- 
>> grained
>> topic branches in the first place.
>>
>
> I see where you're coming from, and I am learning to work more in this
> way. Using git has made a big difference to how I develop. Not just as
> a SCM, but also for improved work-flow. eg trying out things in code,
> and storing failed attempts for later reference/retries/etc if it
> doesn't work out.
>
> My problem with your post is, even if you take this to the extreme
> (topic branches for every fix that you want to make), there will still
> be cases where while working on one fix (maybe disruptive to the main
> branch), you uncover problems with master and start fixing it in your
> topic branch.
>
> It isn't always easy to fix the problems in master (that you're seeing
> in topic) by changing back to master and making another topic. Maybe
> you can only (easily) find & detect the problems in master because of
> other changes in topic (eg: WIP unit tests) that you aren't ready to
> merge yet.
>
> So you would probably have to jump back and forth between your topic,
> and your new 'fix problems in master' branch a lot to track down the
> issues and get the fixes into master. This sounds like a lot more
> 'busy work' than simply cherry-picking (multiple) those fixes out of
> your topic branch into master, and then rebasing your topic branch :-)

I guess it depends on how long-lived your topic branches are, and how  
urgently you want to get independent fixes back into "master".

If the topic branch isn't very long-lived, and the fix isn't  
incredibly urgent, you could just keep it in the topic until the  
entire topic branch is ready to be merged back in.

If the fix depends on changes in the topic branch then getting it into  
master may not be so urgent anyway. How often does this really happen?  
I know that all code bases are different, but in my experience if I  
discover a problem (in master) while working on a topic, the fix is  
usually independent of the topic, in which case I have two options:  
either fix it on master (and then optionally rebase the topic), or  
just fix it on the topic and let the fix propagate back to the master  
when I merge in the topic.

Don't forget that you also have "git stash" for those moments when you  
are working on a topic and see a completely unrelated fix or change  
that you want to do.

But obviously, this is all highly context-dependent and what works for  
me won't always work for everyone.

Wincent

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html