- Original Message -
> From: "Jeff King"
> To: "Stephen Bash"
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Tony Finch"
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 11:16:14 AM
> Subject: Re: A workflow for local patch maintenance
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 a
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:22:28AM -0400, Stephen Bash wrote:
> > To mitigate problem 1, I will sometimes revert a local topic before
> > doing the upstream merge, if I know it has been reworked.
>
> Peff (slightly off topic) - A coworker of mine actually ran into this
> problem earlier this week
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeff King"
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:36:28 PM
> Subject: Re: A workflow for local patch maintenance
>
> ... snip ...
>
> That being said, there are some new downsides, as you noted:
>
> 1. Resolving c
Jeff King wrote:
> 3. The pain in doing the big rebase-test-deploy cycle meant that we
> often delayed it, keeping us several versions behind upstream.
> This is bad not only for the end product (you aren't getting other
> bugfixes from upstream as quickly), but also because the l
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:53:57PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Our aim is to get as many patches into the upstream version as we can,
> which is why my starting point is a clean rebased patch series. I am also
> thinking that this will help me to know when a patch can be dropped from
> the series b
Jeff King wrote:
>
> Do you need to keep the modifications you make on top of upstream as a
> nice, clean series of rebased patches? If not, then you can avoid the
> repeated rebasing, and just use a more traditional topic-branch
> workflow. Treat modifications from upstream as just another topic.
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:12:22PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> We often need to patch the software that we run in order to fix bugs
> quickly rather than wait for an official release, or to add functionality
> that we need. In many cases we have to maintain a locally-developed patch
> for a signifi
This is a copy of an article I published at
http://fanf.livejournal.com/128282.html
I'm sending a copy here because I'm interested to know what other ways
there might be of handling this situation.
--
We often need to patch the software that we run in order to fix bugs
quickly rather than wait fo
8 matches
Mail list logo
