Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Current proposal: > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/policy_repo_2.png
That looks great. >> Are we generally standardizing on using git merge --squash to merge >> those per-bug branches onto master? > > That makes sense. No one needs to see the details of the chnages > we went through in the mainline; they can just go through the branch. Hm. I would tend to delete the branch after it has been merged, but that breaks this. The main reason why I'd delete the branch is so that it's easier to tell what stuff is still pending and unmerged. That would argue for either merging with full history or not deleting the branch. Maybe we should rename branches instead to something like resolved/bug12345? (How do you rename a branch in a remote repository?) > Well, we should not really need to rebase. If there are changes > in master; merge master into the bug branch. Fix any overlap > issues. _then_ merge --squash back into master. This will work, I > think. Yeah, that sounds good to me. > Well, I'll try and see if I can tackle a few bug reports this > weekend on policy. I'll post the steps after that. Raphael already helped with this, so I think I have a handle on it now. I'm just running very short of time due to a major work project due on May 15th, but getting the pending bug work for Policy into Git is close to my top Debian priority. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
