From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFC21F670 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 16:48:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234106AbhJYQvM (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:51:12 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61470 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234118AbhJYQvF (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:51:05 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D2FF77D2; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:48:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=BbhimHfYq7e+zn3sZL3uSXMA7NSA9n/2WxHL8+ RLUEk=; b=blysrkL0l/33cswDMCwbeJk4XTNEcHM7kCvW+b0/bGtgsPM5o338EU j8+NXKZSX8ytRvWW5dPz4sbOvvUiUmjrcZF6OjYAFp5QfbYSYAaByCzbBaVKpmC4 p7Q+DqoqJ8yScRcrSzq3brOr2xnO65TdVgTvmXhF2Ua2HTNCrnPz0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A831DF77D1; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:48:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.133.2.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19D0CF77D0; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:48:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Fabian Stelzer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SubmittingPatchs: clarify choice of base and testing References: <211021.86ee8emx57.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <006c186e-c005-28a3-7a5c-27d365ffe026@gigacodes.de> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:48:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <006c186e-c005-28a3-7a5c-27d365ffe026@gigacodes.de> (Fabian Stelzer's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:59:53 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 688E20B2-35B3-11EC-9BCE-CD991BBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Fabian Stelzer writes: > On 23.10.21 22:32, Junio C Hamano wrote:> * A new feature should be > based on `master` in general. If the new >> - feature depends on a topic that is in `seen`, but not in `master`, >> - base your work on the tip of that topic. >> + feature depends on other topics that are in `next`, but not in >> + `master`, fork a branch from the tip of `master`, merge these topics >> + to the branch, and work on that branch. You can remind yourself of >> + how you prepared the base with `git log --first-parent master..` >> + easily by doing so. > > Using the topic branches from gitster/git that were merged? Or by > selecting the specific commits from the merge into next? If I were doing this, I would find the tip(s) of things I would depend on out of the output from $ git log --oneline --first-parent origin/master..origin/next This lists a series of merge commits and the second parent of each merge commit is the tip of the topic that was merged to 'next'. >> @@ -260,8 +281,8 @@ or include any extra files which do not relate to what your patch >> is trying to achieve. Make sure to review >> your patch after generating it, to ensure accuracy. Before >> sending out, please make sure it cleanly applies to the `master` >> -branch head. If you are preparing a work based on "next" branch, >> -that is fine, but please mark it as such. >> +branch head. If you are preparing a work based on selected topics >> +merged to `master`, please mark your patch as such. > > I think this meant to say 'merged to "next|maint|seen"'? > Or topics selected for being merged into master? Ah, thanks for catching. I meant "not merged to 'master'" (will fix locally). Depending on stuff that are already in 'master', unless you are preparing a fix that would also apply to the maintenance track, is rather easy---you can just build on top of 'master'. And in general, I do not want to see a new topic based on another topic that is not yet in 'next'. If a developer has such a topic, I'd appreciate if the developer waits and shifts their attention to help the other topics they are planning to depend on---and one way to do so is to review these other topics ;-) Thanks.