opencog-dev team mailing list archive

[Gustavo Machado Campagnani Gama <gama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wow. This is really hard. I must be doing something really wrong here.

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 23:19 -0500, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> > >From then on, it's up to you how to merge/rebase the current changes
> > from main.
> 
> Wow.  Its up to me?

Yes. Well, kinda. Not in the way you seem to have understood it.

Let's try this again. You have committed a few things onto the 'main'
branch that should have gone on top of the 'staging' branch instead. All
I'm asking is that you take these changes, merge/rebase then with the
'staging' branch, and push them on top of the *'staging'* branch
whenever you think they're ready.

Is that clear?

> > Since you've committed a few things that have already been
> > fixed on staging -- or another derived branch that will be merged to
> > staging soon, such as the classserver fixes -- you might be better off
> > cherry-picking your commits with "bzr merge -c <rev>", "bzr replay -r
> > <rev>" or something similar.
> 
> ?  I'm reading through your email, and what I'm getting from
> it is that you are nominating me to be the chief maintainer
> of everything, the whole kit-n-kaboodle.  I'm floored.

What I'm trying to say is that some of the commits you've pushed to the
'main' branch after the 'staging' branch was published *might* conflict
with changes that I've already pushed to the 'staging' branch. So I was
trying to be helpful and suggested that you might want to try to merge
your changes using those alternative commands.

So, to let's state it clearly to avoid further mistakes: no one is
asking you to become the maintainer of anything. I'm just asking you to
migrate the latest changes you've committed to the 'main' branch on top
of the 'staging' branch.

> You want me to be the chief maintainer? I get to
> cherry-pick whatever I feel like, and put it into main?

Another note, just to make sure we're on the same page: you shouldn't be
pushing code to main. And, right now, nor should I or anyone else. Once
David or whoever is in the position to make this decision comes to the
conclusion that the 'staging' branch should be pushed as 'main' (or
'stable', or whatever he decides to name the branch), I'll take care of
testing the staging branch with as many archs, distros and compilers
that I can get my hands on, running the (currently nonexistent)
higher-level AI tests that Cassio mentioned and pushing it.

> > Making sure that we have code that's compliant with all of these options
> > is *my* job.
> 
> And so then its my job to merge into main?

(I'm going to repeat myself over and over just to make sure that we're
not misunderstanding each other again)

No. That's my job.

> > track, here's a suggestion: keep track of the branches from the
> > opencog-dev group (https://code.launchpad.net/~opencog-dev).
> 
> I am having trouble subscribing to that mailing list.
> :-/

Yeah, I saw that. Fortunately the web page and access to the branches is
public and since you have permission to commit to 'main', you probably
have permission to commit to 'staging' as well.

> > Yes Linas, yes. My point is, your suggested policy doesn't scale.
> 
> Well,  the policy I was proposing was that
> *everyone*  should have responsibility for
> merging into  the trunk.

Agreed. That's the way it should work. What you seen to not have
understood, in spite of all my efforts, is that what you refer to as
'trunk' is now the lp:~opencog-dev/opencog/staging branch (as opposed to
lp:~opencog-dev/opencog/main).

There's also the problem that some of your latest changes ended up on
the 'main' branch, when they should have been pushed to the 'staging'
branch. So on the previous e-mail, I've requested you to port these
changes to the new 'staging' branch and work on it from now on. That's
all.

> OK. Heh. Thank you for the compliment.  OK, I guess
> I can assume responsibility, as I guess I know the code
> the best, at this point.
> 
> I can try to start trying to pull your code into trunk,
> starting tommorrow.

You don't need to merge code from anyone into trunk.

> OK, but Dave and Cassio never once hinted that I should be
> the one developer that will be doing all of the merges.  That
> is new news to me.  It just never occurred to me ...

And, once again, that's NOT what I've meant to say at all.

> Well, I guess the game plane would then be to pull as
> much as possible out of staging and back into the
> trunk as soon as possible.

No, that's not the plan. The plan is that, hopefully, you will start
working on the staging branch from now on. 

--
Gustavo