develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from December 2017

Re: Revisiting smart match

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Sawyer X
Date:
December 18, 2017 18:43
Subject:
Re: Revisiting smart match
Message ID:
16dce5ed-e7f8-cfda-2a50-e04b72babfef@gmail.com


On 12/18/2017 08:20 PM, Sawyer X wrote:
>
> On 12/18/2017 03:17 PM, Sawyer X wrote:
>> On 12/18/2017 02:56 PM, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:51:35PM +0000, Zefram wrote:
>>>> Father Chrysostomos wrote:
>>>>> You did not rebase your branch.
>>>> Yes.  I know a rebase and trivial merge is preferred, but in this
>>>> case it would have been terribly time-consuming to rebase correctly.
>>>> Resolving the conflicts just once, in the merge, was the practical way.
>>> Please don't do this. For one thing, its against the current policy
>>> ('On merging and rebasing' in perlgit.pod).
>>>
>>> For another, it means that the merge commit potentially contains 'hidden'
>>> changes that are hard to view and review.
>> From my experience, reverting anything also becomes complicated as a
>> result of this.
> Honestly, I would prefer this to be rebased and merged again (hopefully
> with "--no-ff") in order to create a single merge commit of this branch,
> apart from the changes in blead. (This would also require a force push.)
>
> I would do it myself, but I cannot assure I will be able to handle any
> conflicts. If anyone can do it this evening to minimize the amount of
> damage this causes others, it would be good.
>
> We should then avoid making such commits for the future, as much as we can.
>
> And if you have pulled after this merge, you will need to reset to
> before you pulled and pull again.

Though, after further thought, this ship has probably sailed. If anyone
feels strongly this, please sound off. Otherwise, we are likely to keep
history as is.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About