On 06/28/2011 07:32 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> Now when I do:
>>
>> $ git diff origin/master tf/stable
>>
>> I see some weird differences, I don't think the code is ok. You
>> tried to merge it, right? That's the reason why I suggested
>> diff-patch approach [1], to be sure that stable is exactly same
>> as 0.5.0 as tagged in master.
>
> Yes, I did do a merge instead of extract/patch. I don't have an
> explanation for what shows up in that diff but if you look at the
> files or do a diff with their common ancestor (instead of between
> the branch heads), they're the same.
They're not, e.g. see:
https://github.com/tflink/autoqa-devel/blob/stable/autoqa.spec#L94
That is a remnant of a merge that's displayed when diffing the
branches, and it's really included in that file.
Not sure how I missed that one when merging :-/. All the more reason to
delete it.
As a bit of explanation behind my assertion,the follwing command shows
no changes (diff between the two branches and their common ancestor, AFAIK)
git diff origin/stable...upstream/master
but this (diff between the heads) does
git diff origin/stable..upstream master
it turns out that reversing the order of the branches for the common
ancestor diff also shows changes:
git diff upstream/master...origin/stable
(note that in this case origin -> github, upstream -> fedorahosted)
Like I said, it looks like I have more learning to do on how to use some
parts of git.
> I don't understand why preserving history isn't
important, why
> tagging on stable is better or the lack of release branches. My
> lack of understanding isn't enough to argue and delay 0.5.0's
> release, though. The right code will end up being released.
Let's do it my way this time and we can develop better approaches in
the future. I'll send some explanation soon.
Yep, that's pretty much what I was thinking.
Tim