From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2008, #03; Fri, 19) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:20:24 +0200 Message-ID: <200809200020.32285.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <7vprmzrh7w.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart12004202.v1J1DuQGEx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 20 00:21:45 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KgoMC-0001eQ-3d for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:21:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751881AbYISWUd (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:20:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752482AbYISWUd (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:20:33 -0400 Received: from xsmtp0.ethz.ch ([82.130.70.14]:45111 "EHLO XSMTP0.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751725AbYISWUd (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:20:33 -0400 Received: from xfe0.d.ethz.ch ([82.130.124.40]) by XSMTP0.ethz.ch with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:20:31 +0200 Received: from [192.168.0.8] ([77.56.223.244]) by xfe0.d.ethz.ch over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:20:31 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 In-Reply-To: <7vprmzrh7w.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2008 22:20:31.0114 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED5F46A0:01C91AA5] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --nextPart12004202.v1J1DuQGEx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Junio C Hamano wrote: > * tr/workflow-doc (Sat Sep 13 18:11:01 2008 +0200) 2 commits > + Documentation: Refer to git-rebase(1) to warn against rewriting > + Documentation: new upstream rebase recovery section in git-rebase >=20 > I think the last one on "recommended practice" needs discussion. I do not > think it describes _the_ recommended workflow, although I think (1) what > is recommended in the draft does make sense within its own scope, and (2) > it may be impossible to come up with _the_ recommended workflow anyway. [The patch referred to is http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/95806 and the only response so far, to an earlier version, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/95620 ] I was hoping for more feedback, but maybe the list is not the right audience: the intended readers of the document probably aren't as active on the list and confident about patch review. Regarding _the_ recommended workflow, I can think of a few possible approaches: a) Authoritative: either because we really believe it's the One True Workflow, or just because we want to sound so. b) Descriptive: describe it as the workflow "we" use (presumably this includes linux.git which may be worth mentioning; I haven't touched the kernel though). c) Encyclopedic: describe and classify as many recipes (building blocks) and workflows as possible in an attempt to build a complete reference of sorts. d) Blind eye: we're just the tool. Others can devise workflows. I certainly aimed the patch at (a), since I wanted to be able to point people at it (mostly on #git). The resources I learned Git with, except for the videos, just show simple examples of pull/push usage, which I found both unsatisfactory (e.g. I want to know _why_ it's a good idea to make topic branches) and incomplete. This list is an excellent place to learn, but I doubt that's an effort the average user is willing to put in. That being said, I'm certainly willing to rewrite it in the direction of (b), and possibly help with the writeup (though not brainstorming) of (c), if either of those is the list consensus. =2D Thomas PS: Anyone else noticed the striking number of "we have , what is the best workflow and how do I implement it" mails in the past few days? Is that just a statistical anomaly, or another need for documentation? =2D-=20 Thomas Rast trast@student.ethz.ch --nextPart12004202.v1J1DuQGEx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkjUJa8ACgkQqUud07tmzP31IwCeMmte/PWYfIYamOV0mnP+drir VksAniyvJafmy6SBZP1GHRzGQXswtHVT =ONcL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart12004202.v1J1DuQGEx--