From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git bug? + question Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:51:32 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3b90gbfv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7v4pthmew1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061103074857.GA15972@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Miles Bader , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-Reply-To: <20061103074857.GA15972@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> (Karl =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hasselstr=F6m's?= message of "Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:48:57 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gfum2-00059f-CR for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:51:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751026AbWKCIvf convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:51:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752331AbWKCIvf (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:51:35 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32]:38098 "EHLO fed1rmmtao07.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751026AbWKCIve convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:51:34 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061103085133.CVIC13632.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 3 Nov 2006 03:51:33 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id i8re1V0071kojtg0000000 Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:51:38 -0500 To: Karl =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hasselstr=F6m?= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Karl Hasselstr=F6m writes: > On 2006-11-02 18:40:30 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I still need to remember to process "master" first, so all things >> considered, this is a regression in usability for my workflow. > > Where does this constraint come from? With separate remotes, I'd need something like: for b in master maint next pu do git checkout $b && git pull && make || break done And I also would need to have per-branch configuration to merge from ". remotes/origin/$b" without re-fetching while on a non-master branch $b, for the above to work. I still need to remember to process "master" first, so all things considered, this is a regression in usability for my workflow. Because I'll have to have the per-branch configuration that would say something like this: [remote."gitster"] url =3D gitster.example.com:/home/junio/git.git/ fetch =3D heads/maint:remotes/gitster/maint fetch =3D heads/master:remotes/gitster/master fetch =3D heads/next:remotes/gitster/next fetch =3D +heads/pu:remotes/gitster/pu [branch."master"] remote =3D gitster merge =3D heads/master [branch."maint"] remote =3D . merge =3D remotes/gitster/maint [branch."next"] remote =3D . merge =3D remotes/gitster/next ... Side note: the above would not actually work because I am missing an earlier patch by Santi to special case 'dot' as the value of "branch.$name.remote", but I think you get the idea. This requires that by the time we update maint, next and pu branches with what is in the upstream, their corresponding remotes/gitster/* branches are already up-to-date and do not have to be re-fetched, and processing master first is what guarantees it. I do not mind treating "master" specially at all; my otherwise idle repositories with working tree (read: ones on secondary machines I use primarily to build git binary for that machine or that platform, not to develop on) always have "master" checked out; I start working in them while "master" is checked out, and I'll be on "master" before I leave that machine. If I keep using the traditional layout, where master is fetched to origin and next, maint and pu are used to track the remote, I do not have to do any of the above remote/branch configuration in the .git/config file, and after one "git pull" while on "master", I'd have all four branches up to date, ready to be checked out and compiled. But I suspect this "following multiple branches at the same time, switch between them only to compile, test and install but never develop on them" workflow is rather specific to top-level maintainer's workflow and that is why I said defaulting to separate-remote would be an inconvenience to a minority.