From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx.bisdn.de (mx.bisdn.de [185.27.182.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13DB7E7A for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:29:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.43] (42.Red-79-146-253.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [79.146.253.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.bisdn.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A8BFA2DA9; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:38:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5446299A.5060400@bisdn.de> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:38:34 +0200 From: Marc Sune User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Monjalon References: <544617E0.80502@bisdn.de> <39275062.2hPoVIfNVy@xps13> <54462403.3060107@bisdn.de> <3074245.k7N1CrtUjD@xps13> In-Reply-To: <3074245.k7N1CrtUjD@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] development/integration branch? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:29:49 -0000 Thomas, 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. marc