Re: [SQU] NTLM Branch(es)

Can you drop this in or near the CVS guidlines on sourceforge? It seems like a useful reference checklist.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@hem.passagen.se>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Cc: "Chemolli Francesco (USI)" <ChemolliF@GruppoCredit.it>; <squid-dev@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [SQU] NTLM Branch(es)

> Sort of, except that you do not need to mail a diff. Ensuring that the
> branch you want to have merged is up to date and reasonably cleaned up
> is sufficient, and actually preferred as this allows you to make any
> last-minute bug fixes while waiting for the commit to take place.
>
> In this case the auth_rewrite branch was older than the last commit from
> auth_rewrite, making the merge quite hard as there was stuff in the
> patch that was already in HEAD.
>
> What I'd like is that
> a) The branch is reasonably up to date
> b) You have cleaned it up from testing/experimental code
> c) That you have read thru the patch at least once
> d) Properly indented with GNU indent 1.9.1 with the options
> -br -ce -i4 -ci4 -l80 -nlp -npcs -npsl -d0 -sc -di0 -psl
> c) That you send a request for merge to squid-dev, including a
> description of what has been changed since the last merge
> (i.e. a suitable commit log entry)
> d) When the changes are in the current Squid snapshot, send a similar
> message to squid-users pointing them to the snapshot releases if you
> want to have people test it.
> (http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v2/2.5/)
>
> Reasoning:
>
> a: To make sure there is no conflicts when the patch is committed to
> HEAD
>
> b: I'd like to keep the main tree reasonably clean from experimental
> code.
>
> c: Many bugs are found by reading what one have done one more time
>
> d: Having it indented before the commit to HEAD helps YOU a lot in the
> next merge from HEAD. This because any changes in HEAD will be properly
> indented, and if your branch is not then there will be many merge
> conflicts the next time you merge changes from HEAD.
>
> c: So the one that commits your changes does not need to guess what you
> have been doing when writing the commit entry for HEAD.
>
> d: Easier to retreive and Versioned/timestamped. Mainly so you/we know
> what code the user runs when you receive problem reports.
>
> /Henrik
>
>
> Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> > Sorry about this...
> >
> > I'll sort it out today.
> >
> > Kinkie, if we've got changes gooing in, we need to a) merge from HEAD down and have the latest and greatest there. B) create a
> > cvsdiff to HEAD and the clean up the patch, removing any clutter we don't want. c) send that to Henrik/the list.
> >
> > That seems to get the best results?
> >
> > Henrik/Duane/Adrian - is that the best fit for how you guys are operating? It seems to me that allows you the chance to actually
> > review the code before it go into HEAD :]
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@hem.passagen.se>
> > To: "Chemolli Francesco (USI)" <ChemolliF@GruppoCredit.it>
> > Cc: <squid-dev@squid-cache.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 6:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: [SQU] NTLM Branch(es)
> >
> > > Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Henrik, Duane, or whoever else can, please merge the
> > > > changes from auth_rewrite in.
> > >
> > > And if you also merged changes from HEAD before requesting a merge into
> > > HEAD... I won't do the merge before you have done this.
> > >
> > > /Henrik
> > >
> > >
>
>
Received on Sat Feb 10 2001 - 11:08:45 MST