Subject: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] Savannah issues

From: Peter Rosin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:59:43 +0100

On 2013-02-28 00:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 12:00 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> What I meant was that you can use (some of) my above proposed merges
>> to go forward with the new role for master instead of requiring help
>> from Savannah to allow rewriting master.
>>
> So... now are you ok with *completing* my branch renaming instead
> of reverting the part of it that has already been done?  Puzzled...

Personally, I will adapt to whatever you do. My objection was never
about me personally, since I was aware of what took place and got
clued in by your message about the troubles rewriting master. I am
mostly just baffled that you even consider branch rewriting to be
an option at all. If it weren't for the Savannah issues, I would
probably have missed it, because I don't read automake-commit very
carefully. Barring that "Savannah issues" mail, I would probably have
first noticed the change when I pulled the next time (who knows when
that would have happened, I don't pull the automake repo just for
thrills). And I would have been extremely surprised by the failed
merge during that pull.

Who knows how many there are out there with a clone of the repo, but
not following the mailing lists very carefully? Those are the ones
I'm thinking about, and I think you should too. But since I'm not the
maintainer, I will not have to face them when they have wasted time
trying to figure out what has happened when their next pull fails.
In other words, what to do next is your call.

>>> As I said, if you reach a consensus on that (and I guess you will),
>>> feel free to go ahead with that.  No objection from me.
>>
>> You are the maintainer, I'm just stating my opinion. I honestly don't
>> know what I think is best to do now, when the rewriting has already
>> started but not yet completed. I guess it's your mess, and I don't
>> really want to take responsibility for it by stepping in and trying
>> to clear it up. I.e., I will only offer my opinion at this point.
>>
> Fine, I'll revert the partial branch renaming when I have time to do
> that with enough care and attention to avoid another half-done botch-up
> (might be few days or a week or more; please don't push to the repo in
> the meantime).

A second rewrite "undoing" (quotes here since the rewrite can't be
undone, and me and probably others as well will have to adjust the
local repo a second time) the first is probably the lesser evil,
even if it is another branch rewrite.

Cheers,
Peter