svn commit: r331461 - in user/markj/netdump/sys: kern netinet/netdump sys vm

[John Baldwin]

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 08:40:24 AM Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 02:17:02PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > > On 24/03/2018 04:46, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > > I know this is on a private branch, but when/if it
> > > > is merged this becomes part of the main line.
> > > 
> > > Not with svn, I think.
> > > At least, the way we use it.
> > 
> > Indeed, I have no intention to merge the branch directly. I'm using an
> > svn branch so that it's marginally easier for others to test.
> 
> None the less as stated in:
> 	https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/projects/GUIDELINES.txt?view=markup
> 
> 12 	General guidelines:
> 13 	
> 14 	* Should be relevant to FreeBSD.
> 15 	* Should be at least conceivably of interest to somebody else.
> 16 	* Should be in a format that is suitable to merge into the base tree.
> 17 	* Should be something that is worth people's time to read commit mail for.
> 18 	* Write decent commit messages!
> 
> Thanks,

We generally don't do that for user, etc. branches.  Merging from a
projects/user branch into head in svn is often a disaster due to svn's
limitations, so normally a projects/user branch is treated as a work area
and the resulting diff is then hand-applied to head with a suitable commit
message that describes the entire change.  This is similar to using something
like 'git rebase' to rewrite history and compress a long tail of changes
down to a small number of commits prior to merging to head.

You generally don't see these work branches in svn as most developers do them
outside of svn in git, p4, hg, etc. due to svn's limitations.

For things that live permanently in user/projects (e.g. the code for core
elections or the patches for freebsd-update), we do want standard commit
messages.  However, I don't think we want to impose that on WIP branches
that are later compressed down before merging.

-- 
John Baldwin