From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bob Hazard Subject: Re: Re: Android needs repo, Chrome needs gclient. Neither work. What does that say about git? Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:29:33 +0000 Message-ID: <90e180400911240329x93768f6t4b39e643b56e20e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d707e8c-2561-470c-beba-c81e16ac441c@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <65e170e70911200251q2ec5ec87rc37577dddfd3317d@mail.gmail.com> <65e170e70911222011l776a6aean7bd75f072a806616@mail.gmail.com> <20091123135817.GB2532@thunk.org> <65e170e70911231948l3b032dbeu7c99b65ce3ec97ff@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: linuxoflondon@googlemail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: tytso@mit.edu, git@vger.kernel.org, chromium-discuss@googlegroups.com To: adrian.alexander.may@gmail.com X-From: 3uMMLSw0OANI96BILC39CB1CB4CC492Ay69.0CA@listserv.bounces.google.com Tue Nov 24 12:30:11 2009 Return-path: <3uMMLSw0OANI96BILC39CB1CB4CC492Ay69.0CA@listserv.bounces.google.com> Envelope-to: gcwcg-chromium-discuss@m.gmane.org Received: from mail-pz0-f163.google.com ([209.85.222.163]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NCtay-0007ny-JC for gcwcg-chromium-discuss@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:30:09 +0100 Received: by pzk35 with SMTP id 35sf1388606pzk.25 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:30:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jMxCG9ftXIGWkiwu4AHIhdGViXscjrp8ZwVSpke+irw=; b=WgKff0V5jrJ6JsdOxrD/O3QXsllAXJSYpGmo7uJGSAYt1FdsCGDCQ7uZEwbpQMpCa3 5YU1UfAffJV2qdDJ0hiQeGImKf10BvyGvbnrcT8ZkK9X4boHQq6q+snasbREw/RN55cL 60PwcgwI0KRKSvM53D5MMyryEC1En8epsVXHw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url:list-unsubscribe :list-subscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Cc63bTC2io7nQDtDkcN5Tg6C5rIAXl0753/387htmmzDKf5bkbKSV7QvkFNEexmfU+ WvXNSwi5wtEbG6nRvkAzt6AaaajFiIygpAGu613U3EBidksXK2TQk1DacI0ejpwf1vEd L6Hx61FAgN8y3vHnzbgdDMPg+uPLfIpP+pzWQ= Received: by 10.115.100.26 with SMTP id c26mr163193wam.7.1259062200772; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:30:00 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: chromium-discuss@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.114.248.2 with SMTP id v2ls9302wah.2.p; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.189.22 with SMTP id m22mr1587123waf.7.1259062195789; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.189.22 with SMTP id m22mr1587122waf.7.1259062195759; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com (mail-ew0-f224.google.com [209.85.219.224]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 3si1345106pxi.0.2009.11.24.03.29.54; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:54 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linuxoflondon@googlemail.com designates 209.85.219.224 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.224; Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so3330136ewy.6 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.1.28 with SMTP id 28mr4893175ebd.70.1259062193209; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <65e170e70911231948l3b032dbeu7c99b65ce3ec97ff@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linuxoflondon@googlemail.com designates 209.85.219.224 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=linuxoflondon@googlemail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@googlemail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list chromium-discuss@googlegroups.com; contact chromium-discuss+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss/t/1ff27de47079ad2f X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss/msg/7f46d5f355ff31fc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Subscribe: , Archived-At: Git's raison d'etre was to make merging cheaper. You are encouraged to make as many local branches as you want to experiment on features "if a longer experiment that I have committed several stages of turns out to be a blind alley, I'd like to go back a few steps on main, declare everything after that to be a side branch that I'll probably never use again, and continue on main with my next attempt. Is that possible?" Yes. This google tech talk by Randal Schwartz is a little old but it might help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8dhZ9BXQgc4 2009/11/24 Adrian May : >> If you don't have bolt-on scripts, and you move that into the the core >> SCM, then you force *all* projects to use whatever workflow was >> decided as being the One True Way of doing things as seen by the SCM >> designer. =A0So the question is whether the SCM *should* regiment all >> projects into following the SCM's designers idea of the One True >> Workflow. > > Of course I'd want the workflow configurable by whoever controls the > main repository. I couldn't possibly suggest that all git projects > need the same workflow. The number of developers can vary by five > orders of magnitude - that calls for different workflow models. > >> Git's approach is to say that it will be fairly flexible about >> dictating workflow --- who pushs to whom; whether there is a single >> "star" repository topology, or something that is more flexible, etc. >> You seem to hate this flexibility, because it makes life harder until >> you set up these bolt-on scripts. =A0But that's what many of us like >> about git; that it doesn't force us (the project lead) into a single >> way of doing things. > > Leaving aside topology, I suppose we can agree that the subject > divides into two aspects: offering the developer some optional tools, > and asserting control over what gets commited to the official repo. > Perhaps we can also agree that the former belongs under the control of > the developer and the latter should be in the PM's hands. You seem to > have opinions about which of these two aspects is more or less > important, and to what extent git suffices, but I don't. I assume that > the project manager has his own opinions about both aspects and I'm > observing two big projects that independantly have augmented git's > features with their own scripts. Their docs talk about both aspects, > especially repo's, but they are entirely implemented in > developer-overridable scripts. So any repo functions to do with the > second aspect are either features that git needs to grow, or bits of > the git manual that the repo designer didn't read. I'd kinda like to > know which. > > Returning to topology, I think that also divides up similarly. The PM > can't forbid you and me from casually swapping diffs back and forth, > but he can dictate who we are supposed to submit our final candidate > to for review. The very existence of a PM, who controls a subset of > the repositories in the world, already implies a star topology, and I > think pretty much everybody is using distributed source control in > this way, at least when it comes down to *controlling* anything. > People may also be causally bouncing diffs around, but that's not > control, it's communication. I've got a one-man project on github > which I edit from two locations, and even on that scale I find myself > working star-fashion because either computer might have junk > experiments in progress, but I only push to github if it's meaningful > and tidy. > > That reminds me of a slightly different question: if a longer > experiment that I have committed several stages of turns out to be a > blind alley, I'd like to go back a few steps on main, declare > everything after that to be a side branch that I'll probably never use > again, and continue on main with my next attempt. Is that possible? I > know that I can just start a new branch from the before the bad > experiment, but if that happens a lot, the name of my current main > branch would be changing all the time, and I think that's bad. I > suspect what I want is possible, but I'm not sure how to do it. > >> As far as my wanting to impose a particular regimen on my project's >> developers, I've never been a big fan of the Bondage and Discpline >> school of software engineering. =A0They can use whatever workflow they >> like; they just have to deliver patches that are clean. =A0If they are, >> I'll pull from their repository. =A0If they aren't, I won't. > > Repo talks a lot about automating the workflow that leads to precisely > that decision. They evidently want something more evolved than > somebody simply having a look at the code. I'm not sure what they > want, but I'm pretty sure it's none of the developer's business. > > Adrian. > > -- > Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-discuss@googlegroups.com > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > =A0 =A0http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss --=20 Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-discuss@googlegroups.com=20 View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:=20 http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss