From: Keith W. <kei...@go...> - 2010-04-10 16:02:20
|
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 |