DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Sune <marc.sune@bisdn.de>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] development/integration branch?
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:38:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5446299A.5060400@bisdn.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3074245.k7N1CrtUjD@xps13>


On 21/10/14 11:28, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2014-10-21 11:14, Marc Sune:
>> On 21/10/14 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> My balance is different because I have a simpler solution for Marc's problem:
>>> 	git fetch && git merge $(git tag | grep -v -- -rc | tail -n1)
>> We all know we _can_ do this. But is it really necessary? We should be
>> all as lazy as possible and make it easy for users IMHO. `git pull` is
>> easier :)
> Yes and lazy users download tarballs.

At least for me, I stopped downloading DPDK tarballs after the third 
time I had to upgrade the release.
>> I don't see any drawback of using a development branch, except if you
>> consider the extra push to master per release a drawback.
> No I don't care to push one more thing.
> But I care about the message brought by such change. It would mean that
> we can break the development branch and that most of developers don't test
> it nor base their patches on the latest commit. It's all about simple rules
> and messages.

I understand your concern but, isn't peer reviewing meant to prevent this?

>> Also think about new users downloading the repo for the first time. They
>> are forced to do this right now if they want to checkout the latest stable.
> New users will get the latest release and expect to see current work in
> progress right after cloning the git tree (in master branch).
> It's also more common to see work in progress in default branch in cgit.
I know, but I also know other projects do the way I proposed with 
success. In any case it was just a suggestion to try to improve things.


  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-21  9:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-21  8:22 Marc Sune
2014-10-21  8:36 ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-10-21  8:46   ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-21  9:14     ` Marc Sune
2014-10-21  9:28       ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-21  9:38         ` Marc Sune [this message]
2014-10-21 13:50           ` Neil Horman
2014-10-22  7:00         ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-22 13:43           ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-10-22 15:54             ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-21 13:01       ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-10-23  9:19         ` Marc Sune

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5446299A.5060400@bisdn.de \
    --to=marc.sune@bisdn.de \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \


* 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 NNTP newsgroup(s).