From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Making note, in the repository, of push/pull relationships Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:09:08 -0700 Message-ID: <7vll318u8b.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20050815162519.GB9719@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> <7vzmrispi4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050816171142.GB20016@hpsvcnb.fc.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 16 23:10:47 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E58gM-00020q-83 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:09:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932718AbVHPVJL (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:09:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932720AbVHPVJL (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:09:11 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.241.34]:1192 "EHLO fed1rmmtao05.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932718AbVHPVJK (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:09:10 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050816210908.UXJJ8651.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:09:08 -0400 To: Carl Baldwin User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Carl Baldwin writes: > If I may, let me give an example of something I think could serve the > purpose a little more simply and generically. > > Let's say I start with the following: > % ls .git/refs/heads > master > mylocalbranch > myremotebranch > ko-master > % cat .git/branches/ko-master > master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git > > I would add something like this: (I didn't put much thought into the > actual directory and file names, forgive me. ;-) > > % cat .git/branches/relationships > pull:ko-master:master > pull:master:mylocalbranch # The next two document my flow locally > pull:mylocalbranch:master > push:master:myremotebranch # I push my master to a remote that I control And presumably you have .git/branches/myremotebranch file that says something like "master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git". Or should the last line of relationships file be spelled just push:master:ko-master? > % cat .git/remotes/ko > push: master:ko-master pu:ko-pu rc:ko-rc > pull: ko-master:master ko-pu:pu ko-rc:rc > > I might argue that this is now a job for a porcelain script or > something. Probably. My primary interest in discussing this is to see Porcelain folks agree on what notation and semantics to use, and probably set an example by having the minimum base in the barebone Porcelain. Personally I think there are two kinds of patch-flow: one that is pretty much static that can easily be described with something like your relationships notation, and ad-hoc one that I think should not automatically contaminate the established static flow your relationships notation nicely describes. The corporate world may put disproportional stress on the importance of the former, but my feeling is that ad-hoc patch-flow that is outside your usual static patch-flow is just as important; see Documentation/howto/using-topic-branches.txt for why.