From: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Linus Arver via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] SubmittingPatches: remove confusing guidance about base branches
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 14:54:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <owly351rh400.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa5w76jig.fsf@gitster.g>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> "Linus Arver via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> For these reasons, remove the guidance _without_ preserving the meaning
>> of the underlying principle, and instead add an overview of the four
>> named branches.
>
> Meaning that this rewrites the guidance
Yes.
> and changes the meaning of the underlying principle?
Hmm, no. I think I should have written in my commit message instead:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
For these reasons, remove the guidance while still preserving the
meaning of the underlying principle by adding an overview of the four
named branches.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
However, I now think deleting the "base your work on the oldest branch
that your change is relevant to" text was unnecessarily harsh. I think I
can reword it to make it sound less contrary to the accompanying bullet
points.
Will update in v2.
>> -In general, always base your work on the oldest branch that your
>> -change is relevant to.
>> +The following branches are the typical starting points for new work:
>> +
>> +* maint
>> +* master
>> +* next
>> +* seen
>> +
>> +These branches are explained in detail in linkgit:gitworkflows[7].
>> +Choose the appropriate branch depending on the following scenarios:
>
> Please never suggest to build anything on 'next' or 'seen'. They
> are inappropriate to base your work on, if your topic wants to have
> a realistic chance to graduate to 'master'.
I only included "next" and "seen" here just below "maint" and "master"
because they were included as OK-places to start new work (albeit in
exceptional cases) in one of the bullet points:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics
not in `master`, start working on `next` or `seen` privately and
send out patches only for discussion. Once your new feature starts
to stabilize, you would have to rebase it (see the "depends on other
topics" above).
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> If you are making tree-wide changes, while somebody else is also
> making another tree-wide changes, your topic may have severe overlap
> with the other person's topic. In which case, you may be tempted to
> build on 'next' that has the other person's topic, but doing so would
> mean you'll not just depend on the other topic, but with all the
> other topics that are already in 'next'.
Good point. I will include this tip in v2 (seems like
something that would be especially helpful for newer contributors).
> That would make the basic choices simpler.
>
> * If you are fixing bugs in the released version, build on 'maint'
> (which may mean you have to fix things without using new API
> features on the cutting edge that recently appeared in 'master'
> but were not available in the released version).
>
> * If you are adding new features, build on 'master'.
>
> Under exceptional circumstances that you need to depend on a
> selected few topics that are already in 'next' but not in 'master',
> you may want to fork your base-branch from 'master', merge these
> selected few topics to it, and call that your base-branch (which
> nobody else has). And then you build on top of it. When sending
> patches out, because your synthetic base-branch is something only
> you have, you'd need to communicate how you created it in your cover
> letter to allow others to recreate it.
I strongly agree that this is simpler. One thing I would change is to
use a phrase like "start your work" instead of the word "build" because
the latter on quick glance could be misinterpreted as literally building
(compiling/packaging) the project.
Will incorporate in v2 (thank you for the suggestion; will credit you in
a "Helped-by: ..." trailer).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-13 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-08 1:05 [PATCH 0/5] SubmittingPatches: clarify which branch to use Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-08 1:05 ` [PATCH 1/5] SubmittingPatches: reword awkward phrasing Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-08 5:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-08 1:05 ` [PATCH 2/5] SubmittingPatches: be more explicit Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-08 5:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-13 21:03 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-13 21:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-08 1:05 ` [PATCH 3/5] SubmittingPatches: discuss subsystems separately from git.git Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-08 1:05 ` [PATCH 4/5] SubmittingPatches: remove confusing guidance about base branches Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-08 5:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-13 21:54 ` Linus Arver [this message]
2023-07-08 1:05 ` [PATCH 5/5] SubmittingPatches: define topic branches Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-14 6:01 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] SubmittingPatches: clarify which branch to use Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-14 6:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] SubmittingPatches: reword awkward phrasing Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-14 6:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] SubmittingPatches: discuss subsystems separately from git.git Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-14 6:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] SubmittingPatches: de-emphasize branches as starting points Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-14 6:01 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] SubmittingPatches: emphasize need to communicate non-default " Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-14 6:01 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] SubmittingPatches: simplify guidance for choosing a starting point Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-14 17:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-26 1:36 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-26 2:31 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-26 4:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-26 3:04 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] SubmittingPatches: clarify which branch to use Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-26 3:04 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] SubmittingPatches: reword awkward phrasing Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-26 3:04 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] SubmittingPatches: discuss subsystems separately from git.git Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-26 3:04 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] SubmittingPatches: de-emphasize branches as starting points Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-26 3:05 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] SubmittingPatches: emphasize need to communicate non-default " Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-26 3:05 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] SubmittingPatches: simplify guidance for choosing a starting point Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2023-07-26 5:15 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] SubmittingPatches: clarify which branch to use Junio C Hamano
2023-07-26 17:19 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-26 5:16 ` [PATCH v3 6/5] SubmittingPatches: choice of base for fixing an older maintenance track Junio C Hamano
2023-07-26 5:40 ` Eric Sunshine
2023-07-26 16:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-07-26 5:17 ` [PATCH 7/5] SubmittingPatches: explain why 'next' and above are inappropriate base Junio C Hamano
2023-07-27 19:26 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-26 5:21 ` [PATCH 8/5] SubmittingPatches: use of older maintenance tracks is an exception Junio C Hamano
2023-07-27 19:35 ` Linus Arver
2023-07-27 20:08 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=owly351rh400.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com \
--to=linusa@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).