* Install changes only on one branch, let them get merged elsewhere if needed.
In particular, install bug-fixes only on the release branch (if there
-is one) and let them get synced to the trunk; do not install them by
-hand on the trunk as well. E.g. if there is an active "emacs-24" branch
+is one) and let them get synced to the master; do not install them by
+hand on the master as well. E.g. if there is an active "emacs-24" branch
and you have a bug-fix appropriate for the next emacs-24.x release,
-install it only on the emacs-24 branch, not on the trunk as well.
+install it only on the emacs-24 branch, not on the master as well.
Installing things manually into more than one branch makes merges more
difficult.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-03/msg01124.html
The exception is, if you know that the change will be difficult to
-merge to the trunk (eg because the trunk code has changed a lot).
-In that case, it's helpful if you can apply the change to both trunk
+merge to the master (eg because the master code has changed a lot).
+In that case, it's helpful if you can apply the change to both master
and branch yourself (when committing the branch change, indicate
-in the commit log that it should not be merged to the trunk, by
+in the commit log that it should not be merged to the master, by
including the phrase "Not to be merged to master", or any other phrase
that matches "merge").
If your branch has only a single commit, or many different real
commits, it is fine to do a merge. If your branch has only a very
-small number of "real" commits, but several "merge from trunks", it is
-preferred that you take your branch's diff, apply it to the trunk, and
+small number of "real" commits, but several "merge from masters", it is
+preferred that you take your branch's diff, apply it to the master, and
commit directly, not merge. This keeps the history cleaner.
In general, when working on some feature in a separate branch, it is
-preferable not to merge from trunk until you are done with the
+preferable not to merge from master until you are done with the
feature. Unless you really need some change that was done on the
-trunk while you were developing on the branch, you don't really need
+master while you were developing on the branch, you don't really need
those merges; just merge once, when you are done with the feature, and
-Bazaar will take care of the rest. Bazaar is much better in this than
-CVS, so interim merges are unnecessary.
+Git will take care of the rest. Git is much better in this than CVS,
+so interim merges are unnecessary.
Or use shelves; or rebase; or do something else. See the thread for
yet another fun excursion into the exciting world of version control.
If you remove a gnulib module, or if a gnulib module
removes a file, then remove the corresponding files by hand.
-* How to merge changes from emacs-24 to trunk
+* How to merge changes from emacs-24 to master
-[The section on git merge procedure has not yet been written]
-
-Inspect the change log entries (e.g. in case too many entries have been
-included or whitespace between entries needs fixing). If someone made
-multiple change log entries on different days in the branch, you may
-wish to collapse them all to a single entry for that author in the
-trunk (because in the trunk they all appear under the same date).
-Obviously, if there are multiple changes to the same file by different
-authors, don't break the logical ordering in doing this.
+[The section on git merge procedure has not yet been written.]
You may see conflicts in autoload md5sums in comments. Strictly
speaking, the right thing to do is merge everything else, resolve the
-conflict by choosing either the trunk or branch version, then run
-`make -C lisp autoloads' to update the md5sums to the correct trunk
+conflict by choosing either the master or branch version, then run
+'make -C lisp autoloads' to update the md5sums to the correct master
value before committing.
* Re-adding a file that has been removed from the repository
* Undoing a commit (uncommitting)
-If you have not pushed the commit, you may be able to use `git reset
+If you have not pushed the commit, you may be able to use 'git reset
--hard' with a hash argument to revert the your local repo copy to the
pre-commit state.
If you have pushed commit, resetting will be ineffective because it
-will only vanish the commit in your local copy. Instead, use `git
+will only vanish the commit in your local copy. Instead, use 'git
revert', giving it the commit ID as argument. This will create a
new commit that backs out the change. Then push that.
* Bisecting
This is a semi-automated way to find the revision that introduced a bug.
-Browse `git help bisect' for technical instructions.
+Browse 'git help bisect' for technical instructions.
+
+* Maintaining ChangeLog history
+
+Older ChangeLog entries are kept in history files named ChangeLog.1,
+ChangeLog.2, etc., and can be edited just as any other source files
+can. Newer ChangeLog entries are stored in the repository as commit
+messages, which cannot be edited directly.
+
+'make ChangeLog' copies newer ChangeLog entries into a file
+'ChangeLog' that is intended to be put into the distribution tarball.
+This ChangeLog file is not put into the repository.
+
+'make change-history' copies all newer ChangeLog entries into the
+start of the newest ChangeLog history file. These ChangeLog entries
+are thereafter considered to be old, so later uses of 'make ChangeLog'
+and/or 'make change-history' will no longer copy the entries. To
+alter ChangeLog history, run 'make change-history', then edit
+the ChangeLog history files manually and commit your changes.