Recipes vs. Looms vs. pipelines

John Arbash Meinel john at arbash-meinel.com
Tue Jan 5 16:30:37 GMT 2010


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 11:15 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>
>> Which (IMO) is something that pushes for having a real DAG in the loom
>> state, rather than just a stack model. As it means you can push *just
>> this thread* into upstream, and have them merge it, without them
>> having
>> to merge all of your other changes. Otherwise the loom is just there
>> to
>> help you develop the patch. And then you throw away all the history
>> once
>> the patch gets applied to upstream. 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. The relationship between
> threads being DAG | sequence won't affect what merges are needed.
> 
> -Rob

If you have a purely 'stack' model, and have:
- - feature2
- - feature1
- - upstream

If someone wants just 'feature2' they have to cherrypick or get feature1.

If you had a DAG with:

- - integration => feature1, feature2
- - feature2  => upstream
- - feature1  => upstream
- - upstream

Then someone can just 'bzr merge feature2' and get only those changes.

The changes for loom itself, are stuff like 'up-thread' from feature1 =>
feature2 is just a 'switch'. But up-thread from feature2 => integration
(or feature1) requires a merge from both feature1 and feature2 (probably
committing inbetween.)

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktDaS0ACgkQJdeBCYSNAAO0pQCcD9Q8vzI22axn1ZPC75rcP/Cy
dfYAn0jKCN9ceXc2zXuMw25F3sl1xTAj
=HtNK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list