[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 0330 - Add comment about last change to VERSION

Martin Kosek mkosek at redhat.com
Mon Dec 9 13:50:40 UTC 2013


On 12/09/2013 02:35 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 12/09/2013 12:08 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2013 01:37 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>> Consider this scenario:
>>>>
>>>> - Nathaniel submits RADIUS patches that update the API version (from 2.69 to
>>>> 2.70)
>>>> - I have ACI patches that also bump the version (from 2.69 to 2.70)
>>>> - Nathaniel's patches gets accepted
>>>> - I rebase my ACI patches onto master. Git thinks that the 2.69->2.70 change
>>>> is already done, so it leaves VERSION unchanged.
>>>>
>>>> I can solve this locally by telling Git to not merge VERSION automatically,
>>>> but I think it would be helpful to add a unique comment to each change so
>>>> that everyone gets a conflict cases like this.
>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Freeipa-devel mailing list
>>>> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
>>>
>>> Makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> I'd just add a comment so that the purpose of the last change comment is also
>>> obvious for the new developer perusing the VERSION file.
>>>
>>> Maybe something along the lines of:
>>>
>>>  ########################################################
>>>  IPA_API_VERSION_MAJOR=2
>>>  IPA_API_VERSION_MINOR=70
>>> +# Update the last change entry to enforce conflict on merging two independent
>>> branches into master.
>>> +# Last change: npmccallum - RADIUS support
>>
>> I spoke with Petr offline, to me it would make bigger sense if we just forbid
>> automatic merging of this line on the git server side (if possible) instead of
>> adding other arbitrary work to our development process.
>>
>> IIRC, Petr3 said it should be possible to do.
> 
> Except it may not fix the issue, if someone does a rebase on his machine
> and resubmit a patch to the list w/o noticing the change was effectively
> dropped.
> 
> Simo.

I thought that the point of the anti-merge protection is to prevent git merging
tools to prevent automatic rebase of this particular line and force manual
merging, i.e. force increasing the number.

Martin




More information about the Freeipa-devel mailing list