From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: how to work in hirarchical git model? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:32:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4948AB14.8030004@viscovery.net> References: <703400.93370.qm@web112210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Gili Pearl X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 17 08:34:44 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 1LCqvU-0007vf-6j for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:34:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752308AbYLQHdR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:33:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751401AbYLQHdR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:33:17 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:8303 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249AbYLQHdQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:33:16 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCqtZ-0005Uq-8d; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:32:37 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.96]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9BF54D; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:32:36 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) In-Reply-To: <703400.93370.qm@web112210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Gili Pearl schrieb: > Here is one problem I saw when trying to work in the three-level model. > At some point, I had the following setup: > > top-level : A----B----C----D > \ > \ > mid-level1: K----L----M > \ > \ > low-level1: X----Y > > The maintainer of mid-level1 has decided that commits K L M are ready to be > merged into the top-level repo. So he rebased on top-level before asking 'please > pull', but after that the low-level was not able to rebase on the mid-level > any more. In this model, the mid-level1 maintainer should *not* rebase against top-level. Rather, he should ask the top-level maintainer to *merge* K-L-M. > So what is the right working flow for us? The only ones who should be allowed to rebase are developers at the lowest level. Everyone else should only pull or merge. -- Hannes