I completely agree. That was the reason I proposed Ivan and Andreas agree on a path to merge existing work and coordinate better in future. I think that current code is not _that_ hard to merge, but it can't continue like this for a long time.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Harald Welte laforge@gnumonks.org wrote:
Hi all!
while reviewing the current PCU code in the git repository, it occurred to me that somehow the jolly_new branch doesn't seem to be based on master, and the only common ancestor is 9b06ff0c4c49f1927b9029d38e16670a7b7301fb from June 15.
In fact, Ivan seems to have made a number of changes concurrently with Andreas, but not basing on each other's code. It's really a big mess, from what I can tell.
I'm referring to the followign commit's by Ivan: a9e6dc5084627e7c279ba08de7a7809e97ebc539 d78ee736239414021fde8010179f42b86464a238
Which are completely unrelated to the work that Andreas has been doing at the same time (all his commit's from 2012-06-27 on, i.e. 39621c41f303e24b7324dc4c91447a449d2a654b and later.
I strongly recomend that you coordinate more and re-view each others' code better.
And regarding the messy situatin with master vs. jolly_new: I think the only practical solution is to drop one of the two parallel and incompatible changes regarding the RLC/MAC and TBF establishment changes.
Do you have any input on how to resolve this specific issue? I think none of us can afford to waste resources on duplication of work and creating virtually un-mergeable branches :/
Regards, Harald --
- Harald Welte laforge@gnumonks.org http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)