Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:03:41 -0400
From:      "Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)" <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>
To:        Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com>
Cc:        Garrett Cooper <ngie@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable@freebsd.org, svn-src-stable-9@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r301681 - stable/9/sys/rpc
Message-ID:  <0DFEB3AC-B864-47B5-8261-83E68989385A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201606081850.u58IotT0022829@slippy.cwsent.com>
References:  <201606081850.u58IotT0022829@slippy.cwsent.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--Apple-Mail=_E2FD5B9F-B5F2-4190-AF23-7486FD515491
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8


> On Jun 8, 2016, at 14:50, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> In message <201606081823.u58INXvL053444@repo.freebsd.org>, Garrett =
Cooper
> write
> s:
>> Author: ngie
>> Date: Wed Jun  8 18:23:33 2016
>> New Revision: 301681
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/301681
>>=20
>> Log:
>>  MFstable/10 r301680:
>>=20
>>  MFC r300625:
>=20
> Why MFC to stable/10 and then to stable/9. Doesn't that make stable/10
> stable/9's ancestor? When stable/9 was first branched,HEAD was its
> ancestor. Doesn't this cause confusing ancestry in the branch?

Good question!

Yes; it makes ^/stable/10 ^/stable/9=E2=80=99s ancestor for changes from =
^/head, even though the ancestry was the other way around (^/stable/9 is =
^/stable/10=E2=80=99s ancestor, chronologically=E2=80=A6 but =
content-wise ^/stable/9 is a subset really of everything in ^/stable/10 =
and ^/head). There have been a few discussions about this on the =
developer=E2=80=99s list, and the general consensus was a trickle down =
method, i.e. =E2=80=9Cmerge from head to head-1; merge from head-1 to =
head-2; etc=E2=80=9D.

There=E2=80=99s some minor disagreement on content in the MFC messages, =
but the way I have things right now is the preferred format AFAIK, i.e. =
less people have nitpicked the messages, content-wise.

After I fix the small formatting annoyance with my MFCs vs others, I was =
thinking of putting out the scripts I use for CR; it would be nice for =
everyone to be using the same tools.

Thanks!
-Ngie

--Apple-Mail=_E2FD5B9F-B5F2-4190-AF23-7486FD515491
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=RdbN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_E2FD5B9F-B5F2-4190-AF23-7486FD515491--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0DFEB3AC-B864-47B5-8261-83E68989385A>