news from the topic experiment

[Long Vu]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/27/2016 05:44 PM, Long Vu wrote:
>>
>> Have not observed anything weird with missing obsolescence marker
>> propagation, what symptom should we be paying attention to?
>
> If you pull from both master and fork you should not have any issue. Pulling
> from master only would let you pull the published version without obsoleting
> the latest draft.
>

Ah I see, but I suppose that would be a rare case.

Why would someone been pulling from the fork repo then stop and only
pull from the master only?

Once the feature/bugs is released, we continue to use the same fork
repo on the server for subsequent features/bugs so we will keep
pulling/pushing from/to that fork again and again.

However, my 2 cents, having the obsolescence marker on the master is
sort of a waste because the master repo has none of those obsolete
revisions so what's a point to have a file listing revisions that do
not exist in that master repo?  If it's just for obsolescence marker
transfer, well they are already being transfer naturally because we
keep using the fork repo after that.

>>
>> Cool.
>
>
> Did this convinced your to have a look at topic ?
>

Yes it does :)


-- 
Long Vu | Build Controller | Intelerad | +1-514-931-6222 ext. 7743

-- 

This email or any attachments may contain confidential or legally 
privileged information intended for the sole use of the addressees. Any 
use, redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this information, 
except as intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, 
please notify the sender and remove all copies of the message, including 
any attachments.