On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Roland Scheidegger <sr...@vm...> wrote:
> On 10.04.2010 17:10, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Keith Whitwell
>> <kei...@go...> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Roland Scheidegger <sr...@vm...> wrote:
>>>> On 10.04.2010 16:43, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Keith Whitwell
>>>>> <kei...@go...> wrote:
>>>>>> Hmm, not sure whether to merge or squash-merge this branch. Any thoughts?
>>>>> The conversion to pipe_resource seems to be done by components. Maybe a new
>>>>> branch that reorganize (git rebase -i) the commits in gallium-resources and
>>>>> merge the new branch to master?
>>>> I've never used git rebase -i but I'm not convinced that can give
>>>> something sensible. It wasn't done strictly by components, with a couple
>>>> merges from master (and gallium-buffer-usage-cleanup) in between and
>>>> fixes for already converted things...
>>>>
>>> Squash merge it is.
>>
>> Somewhat arbitrary decision to avoid stretching this out any further.
>>
>> I don't think the history that was on the branch was very useful, nor
>> does inventing history seem likely to help people searching for
>> regressions, etc. The branch is effectively an atomic change, so
>> let's deal with it like that...
>
> Yeah, you're right. Thinking about it, parts of it were always broken
> throughout the life of the branch or didn't even build, so squash merge
> makes sense. Glad it's merged - no more conflicts fixing for merges from
> master :-).
Indeed.
Keith
|
