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 09:48:36 +0100 Message-ID: <4948BCE4.7030605@viscovery.net> References: <703400.93370.qm@web112210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4948AB14.8030004@viscovery.net> <753177.33978.qm@web112212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Gili Pearl X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 17 09:49:59 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 1LCs6Q-0003fR-QQ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:49:59 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751748AbYLQIsk (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:48:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753567AbYLQIsk (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:48:40 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:15075 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751577AbYLQIsj (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:48:39 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCs57-0007YL-7O; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:48:37 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.96]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF82854D; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:48:36 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) In-Reply-To: <753177.33978.qm@web112212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 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: > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Johannes Sixt >> >> 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. >> > > > But what if K-L-M conflict with C-D? The one who should take care about it is > the mid-level1 maintainer (or possibly one of the low-level1 maintainers). Ideally, mid-level1 maintainer will have done the merge in a throw-away branch and will know about the difficulties of the merge and has to tell top-level maintainer about it. Then top-level maintainer decides whether he can redo the merge himself (because it's trivial enough), or whether he prefers to pull the throw-away merge, which then obviously is not-so-throw-away anymore. > I still don't see clearly what happens next in the example above when the low > level developr wants to push X-Y upstream? On which branch should he rebase? > Need he rebase on mid-level (where K-L-M were already merged upstream), or > maybe direclty on the top-level?? The question is perhaps: How do the mid-level and low-level developers get the changes made by the other teams? The answer is: When mid-level has completed a feature (i.e. the branch was integrated into top-level), then he is allowed to pull from top-level. This must result in a fast-forward merge. Low-level developers always rebase against mid-level. -- Hannes