From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Beyer Subject: Re: [GSoC 2011] Git Sequencer Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 21:07:01 +0200 Message-ID: <1301857622.3448.134.camel@lambda> References: <20110403172054.GA10220@kytes> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Git List , Christian Couder , Daniel Barkalow , Sverre Rabbelier , Jonathan Nieder To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 03 21:07:14 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q6Sdl-0005Me-Md for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 21:07:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753129Ab1DCTHG convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:07:06 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:56640 "HELO mailout-de.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753044Ab1DCTHF (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:07:05 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Apr 2011 19:07:02 -0000 Received: from erft-5d80a451.pool.mediaWays.net (EHLO [192.168.1.34]) [93.128.164.81] by mail.gmx.net (mp072) with SMTP; 03 Apr 2011 21:07:02 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1499303 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/wmwpLrdXwD809lzzdJk3AdHrt3pFW/uu94fLFx/ e26w414HcqS5DT In-Reply-To: <20110403172054.GA10220@kytes> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi Ram, first, some notes on my git-sequencer 2008 branches that can be found a= t http://repo.or.cz/w/git/sbeyer.git ... (Not sure if I remember everything correctly) I've settled to develop within the "seq-builtin-dev" branch and I sometimes merged Junio's "master" into that branch to catch up. The "seq-builtin-dev" branch is the important one. Using git rebase -i (using git-sequencer) I sometimes remanaged the branch to "seq-builtin-rfc" that should represent a snapshot of a potential patch queue. My last rebase processes of the seq-builtin-rfc branch were pretty unmotivated and hence messy. I have not touched the repo very often after GSOC'08 and I stopped touching it (as I stopped following recent Git development) "20 months ago" apparently. Quite many things may have changed since then. The file A_SEQUENCER_TODO_FILE (added 2009-08-03) in the repo describes the missing and buggy pieces to fix so that _I_ (only me) would have been 100 per cent satisfied with that git-sequencer. http://repo.or.cz/w/git/sbeyer.git/blob/9e4b4d92f681a47e3d7ad2152d2391b= 2ab125a0c:/A_SEQUENCER_TODO_FILE [Some notes are also "strategy notes" to get things accepted, like the changes on "rebase -i -p" which are "not loved by everyone". ;-)] On 2011-04-03, 22:50 +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:=20 > * Is this a good change? Are there any forseeable issues? I want to mention an issue that I have not foreseen before: merges. (You need merges, for example, when doing rebase -i -p ... -p as in --preserve-merges.) When I began, there was code in the "next" branch that added the TODO instructions "mark", "reset" and "merge" to do merges properly and I based my work on it. The original pieces by J=C3=B6rg Sommer can still = be found here: http://repo.or.cz/w/git/sbeyer.git/shortlog/6fabd85e8a777c26f3ae8ce11cb= 7f4265502ea7f However, there have been strong opinions that the "mark"/"reset"/"merge= " instructions are ugly and unpleasant to users and not even necessary (a= t least for rebase--interactive... and for sequencer, maybe, maybe not).=20 Hence, the code in "next" has been rejected later. During GSOC 2008 I regrettably underestimated the importance to communicate with the Git folks about these things. That's one of the main reasons the sequencer pieces did not get into master. And after GSOC'08 I had too little time for this... :-/ Well, the merging thing is the only *real* issue I remember. Good luck and regards, Stephan