-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.8k
Merge maintenance branches into master #5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5215
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5239
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5258
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5259
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5271
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5272
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5275
as evidenced in the Eunjin.ttf Korean font) Thanks Jae-Joon Lee for finding this! svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5283
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5292
used with Type 3 fonts. svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5293
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5294
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5298
another related to the addition of the get_gray method svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5299
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5304
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5305
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5306
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5312
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5313
…ich I think is wrong svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5329
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5334
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5358
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5360
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5381
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5383
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5385
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5396
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5442
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5443
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5488
svn path=/branches/v0_91_maint/; revision=5573
svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8913
svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8917
…847. To avoid misplaced boundaries and artifacts with alpha < 1, we do not stroke the pcolor and contourf patch boundaries by default; but without that stroking, antialiasing produces boundary artifacts that tend to be visually disturbing. Therefore we sacrifice antialiasing for these patches. svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8920
svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8926
…rmap (values between -1 and 0 were being made positive due to an int cast). Thanks to Eoghan Harrington for discovering and supplying the patch! svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8931
…ere not initialized properly. Thanks to LittleBigBrain for reporting and Friedrich Romstedt for making the original patch. svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8933
svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8939
svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8953
svn path=/branches/v1_0_maint/; revision=8955
This merges branches 'origin/v1.0.x', 'origin/v0.99.x', 'origin/v0.98.x' and 'origin/v0.91.x' with --strategy=ours, i.e., marks all of their commits as included without changing master.
This is a huge commit. Is it possible to merge the maintenance branches one at a time, or is there benefit to merging them all at once? |
I'm just trying to understand exactly what this is, since I am just learning about strategy=ours. Did you run this command on the master to merge from the branch, eg
with the strategy=ours saying keep all the master files as is. I see the diff is empty in your pull request, which is what we would want since the changes have already been merged. What then gets updated in master exactly, the commit DAG? |
Darren: it's possible to merge one at a time, or to merge only the active maintenance branch (which means that if we ever need to update one of the older branches, we can't merge it into master, or we'll get a huge merge at that time). John: what I did was
Yes, the diff against master should be empty, and what gets updated is the commit DAG. The merge operation makes all the commits in the various branches ancestors of this commit, so after this commit is merged into master, merging any of the maintenance branches into master will not try to apply any of those ancestral commits. If it's unclear, try viewing this in gitk (or gitx or the various other GUIs) or adding practice commits into a local copy of a maintenance branch and merging them into master before and after this change. In principle git2svn could have done this based on our svnmerge.py information, and it seems that it has worked partially. The git branch model is a DAG where any merge has both (or all) merged branches as ancestors, whereas the svnmerge model is that each commit either has or has not been applied to a given branch, and you can pick and choose which ones to merge in at a time. The svnmerge "merges" correspond more the git's "cherry-pick" functionality, except that svnmerge attempts to keep track which diffs have been included and git cherry-pick does not. |
Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood what this pull request was doing. I thought it was actually pulling all non-conflicting commits from the various maintenance branches into master. I withdraw my comment about applying it one branch at a time. |
I wonder if this has anything to do with the minor annoyance we always had with svnmerge.py where various files not modified by the commit were still having their properties changed? I looked into it once, and I found that the property being changed had something to do with changing which revision number a file was being merged from (or something like that). |
I wonder if this should be done iteratively, meaning: git checkout v0.98.x That way, just in case anyone submits a patch against an older version than 1.0.x, we can always apply it and propagate it up the chain. |
Darren: you're right, that's a better way to do this. I think it will involve several pull requests, since we have to merge into each branch separately. |
Ok, I'm closing this pull request so we can handle it that way. |
Fix tests for python3.
BUG: improved fix for np 1.9 errors
Vetter checks for python and IPython
Decode the mic data correctly
mnt: simplify stride calculation in LogLocator.tick_values
It seems that the svn2git transition has not picked up all merges or at least has not turned them into git merges (perhaps this is impossible in the general case, as you can do cherry-picking with svnmerge that does not translate into clean git merges). If we want to use a merge workflow where we merge feature/bugfix branches first into the current maintenance branch and then into master, we should start with a maintenance branch that merges cleanly into master without causing changes in master, and this commit does that using the
--strategy=ours
merge option.(I guess it would really be sufficient to merge only v1_0_x into master, if we are never going to touch the older branches again, but it doesn't hurt to include them.)