How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Łukasz Lew]

Hi,

I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
- two repositories: pub, priv
- priv is clone/branch of pub
- there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
- there are regular syncs with pub in priv

Problem:
Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.

Is it possible to do with git?

Thanks
Lukasz

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Nick Andrew]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
> - two repositories: pub, priv
> - priv is clone/branch of pub
> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
> 
> Problem:
> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
> 
> Is it possible to do with git?

Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
with git?" :-)

If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
for-public branch. Push your for-public branch to pub, then rebase
your private branch.

Nick.

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Łukasz Lew]

Thanks Nick, thats really helpful (and surprisingly simple).
I have a couple more questions:

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
>> - two repositories: pub, priv
>> - priv is clone/branch of pub
>> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
>> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
>>
>> Problem:
>> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
>> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
>>
>> Is it possible to do with git?
>
> Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
> with git?" :-)

So I've heard, but not yet experienced it myself. I'm thrilled to try.

>
> If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
> and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
> cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
> for-public branch.

That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits just like in git-add -p?

> Push your for-public branch to pub,
> then rebase your private branch.

Rebase to the tip of master? Is it needed? Ie. cherry-pick does not
remove the patch from
the master in priv.

If I now pull from pub, I will get the same change and it mereges nicely :D

Can I get away without creating for_pub branch? maybe cherry pick in
pub from priv somehow?

>
> Nick.
>

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Alexander Potashev]

Hello, Łukasz!

On 16:38 Sun 14 Dec     , Łukasz Lew wrote:
> Thanks Nick, thats really helpful (and surprisingly simple).
> I have a couple more questions:
> 
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> >> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
> >> - two repositories: pub, priv
> >> - priv is clone/branch of pub
> >> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
> >> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
> >>
> >> Problem:
> >> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
> >> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to do with git?
> >
> > Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
> > with git?" :-)
> 
> So I've heard, but not yet experienced it myself. I'm thrilled to try.
> 
> >
> > If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
> > and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
> > cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
> > for-public branch.
> 
> That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits just like in git-add -p?
It's, however, better to make more commits to not experience the need of
commit splitting.

But you can use '--no-commit' option of 'git cherry-pick' and 'git merge'
(and 'git pull' as well as 'git merge'). For example:

	git cherry-pick --no-commit <sha1>    # cherry-pick without commiting
	git reset --                          # unstage all changes
	git add -p                            # patch update

You can also use 'git add -i' (interative mode) instead of 'git add -p'.

> 
> > Push your for-public branch to pub,
> > then rebase your private branch.
> 
> Rebase to the tip of master? Is it needed? Ie. cherry-pick does not
> remove the patch from
> the master in priv.
> 
> If I now pull from pub, I will get the same change and it mereges nicely :D
> 
> Can I get away without creating for_pub branch? maybe cherry pick in
> pub from priv somehow?
> 
> >
> > Nick.
> >

					Alexander

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Łukasz Lew]

Hi Alexander,

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 17:06, Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Łukasz!
>
> On 16:38 Sun 14 Dec     , Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> Thanks Nick, thats really helpful (and surprisingly simple).
>> I have a couple more questions:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> >> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
>> >> - two repositories: pub, priv
>> >> - priv is clone/branch of pub
>> >> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
>> >> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
>> >>
>> >> Problem:
>> >> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
>> >> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
>> >>
>> >> Is it possible to do with git?
>> >
>> > Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
>> > with git?" :-)
>>
>> So I've heard, but not yet experienced it myself. I'm thrilled to try.
>>
>> >
>> > If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
>> > and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
>> > cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
>> > for-public branch.
>>
>> That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits just like in git-add -p?
> It's, however, better to make more commits to not experience the need of
> commit splitting.

Indeed good advice and best practice, but another best practice is to
not commit not compiling state.
My common scenario is that I code a big change in priv repository, and
after that I find that some of its parts can and should be moved to
pub.

>
> But you can use '--no-commit' option of 'git cherry-pick' and 'git merge'
> (and 'git pull' as well as 'git merge'). For example:
>
>        git cherry-pick --no-commit <sha1>    # cherry-pick without commiting
>        git reset --                          # unstage all changes
>        git add -p                            # patch update
>
> You can also use 'git add -i' (interative mode) instead of 'git add -p'.

That's a possible solution indeed.
Now I see that the right "plumbing" I need is splitting a commit into
smaller parts and merging several commits into a larger one.

I think that would be nice functionality.

Do you know any tool that would allow such a manipulation on commits
in history?

Thanks
Lukasz

>
>>
>> > Push your for-public branch to pub,
>> > then rebase your private branch.
>>
>> Rebase to the tip of master? Is it needed? Ie. cherry-pick does not
>> remove the patch from
>> the master in priv.
>>
>> If I now pull from pub, I will get the same change and it mereges nicely :D
>>
>> Can I get away without creating for_pub branch? maybe cherry pick in
>> pub from priv somehow?
>>
>> >
>> > Nick.
>> >
>
>                                        Alexander
>

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Daniel Barkalow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3783 bytes --]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Łukasz Lew wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
> 
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 17:06, Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello, Łukasz!
> >
> > On 16:38 Sun 14 Dec     , Łukasz Lew wrote:
> >> Thanks Nick, thats really helpful (and surprisingly simple).
> >> I have a couple more questions:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> >> >> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
> >> >> - two repositories: pub, priv
> >> >> - priv is clone/branch of pub
> >> >> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
> >> >> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
> >> >>
> >> >> Problem:
> >> >> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
> >> >> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Is it possible to do with git?
> >> >
> >> > Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
> >> > with git?" :-)
> >>
> >> So I've heard, but not yet experienced it myself. I'm thrilled to try.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
> >> > and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
> >> > cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
> >> > for-public branch.
> >>
> >> That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits just like in git-add -p?
> > It's, however, better to make more commits to not experience the need of
> > commit splitting.
> 
> Indeed good advice and best practice, but another best practice is to
> not commit not compiling state.

In your private branches, it's actually good practice to commit all sorts 
of junk. That way, when you mess up badly while trying to get it to 
compile, you won't have lost your work. Of course, that means your commits 
are going to need more cleanup before going public.

> My common scenario is that I code a big change in priv repository, and
> after that I find that some of its parts can and should be moved to
> pub.

I usually end up with my private branch containing the public branch, plus 
a bunch of commits that introduce: bugs, later fixed; mixed improvements; 
and debugging cruft. I want to generate nice commits that are individual 
improvements. I generally do:
$ git checkout -b submit origin/master (the first time, to set it up)

$ git checkout submit 
$ git diff submit mixed-work
look at it for good changes, find some in file1 and file2
$ git diff submit mixed-work -- file1 file2 | git apply
Sometimes, clean up bits that aren't ideal
$ git add -i
Add the good parts
$ git checkout . (revert the working tree to the index)
$ make test (did I extract the change correctly?)
$ git commit
Write a good message, sign off, etc
$ git checkout mixed-work
$ git rebase -i submit
Often, resolve easy conflicts where my mixed-work branch introduced bugs 
that I fixed later and have now adopted the fixed code

Then I repeat until I don't have any more good changes in mixed-work 
(either I have nothing, only debugging cruft, or only stuff I haven't 
gotten to work yet). If there's nothing but cruft, I've fully merged the 
topic, and I delete the branch.

Eventually, I'm satisfied with what I've cleaned up, and I do:
$ git push origin submit:master

Also, I generally have a bunch of "mixed-work" branches, each containing 
different stuff that isn't ready. I'll periodicly go through all of them 
and rebase onto "submit" or "origin/master" (or, sometimes, give up on 
them and delete them).

(One thing that would be nice to have is a "git apply --interactive" which 
applies the user's choice of hunks, like "git add -i" adds them)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Łukasz Lew]

Well, I am still a beginner in git. I just switched from mercurial.
Some inline follows:

2008/12/15 Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Łukasz Lew wrote:
>
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 17:06, Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello, Łukasz!
>> >
>> > On 16:38 Sun 14 Dec     , Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> >> Thanks Nick, thats really helpful (and surprisingly simple).
>> >> I have a couple more questions:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> >> >> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
>> >> >> - two repositories: pub, priv
>> >> >> - priv is clone/branch of pub
>> >> >> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
>> >> >> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Problem:
>> >> >> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
>> >> >> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is it possible to do with git?
>> >> >
>> >> > Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
>> >> > with git?" :-)
>> >>
>> >> So I've heard, but not yet experienced it myself. I'm thrilled to try.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
>> >> > and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
>> >> > cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
>> >> > for-public branch.
>> >>
>> >> That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits just like in git-add -p?
>> > It's, however, better to make more commits to not experience the need of
>> > commit splitting.
>>
>> Indeed good advice and best practice, but another best practice is to
>> not commit not compiling state.
>
> In your private branches, it's actually good practice to commit all sorts
> of junk. That way, when you mess up badly while trying to get it to
> compile, you won't have lost your work. Of course, that means your commits
> are going to need more cleanup before going public.

I started to follow your advise.
Then I rebase -i.
I found out I need more precise commit messages. :)

>
>> My common scenario is that I code a big change in priv repository, and
>> after that I find that some of its parts can and should be moved to
>> pub.
>
> I usually end up with my private branch containing the public branch, plus
> a bunch of commits that introduce: bugs, later fixed; mixed improvements;
> and debugging cruft. I want to generate nice commits that are individual
> improvements. I generally do:
> $ git checkout -b submit origin/master (the first time, to set it up)
>
> $ git checkout submit
> $ git diff submit mixed-work
> look at it for good changes, find some in file1 and file2
> $ git diff submit mixed-work -- file1 file2 | git apply

But with this command we do not preserve objects identity.
I.e: when you merge with mixed-work you have duplicate changes.
Is it ok?

> Sometimes, clean up bits that aren't ideal
> $ git add -i
> Add the good parts
> $ git checkout . (revert the working tree to the index)
> $ make test (did I extract the change correctly?)
> $ git commit
> Write a good message, sign off, etc
> $ git checkout mixed-work
> $ git rebase -i submit

... Ah I see, we throw away old commits anyway with rebasing.

> Often, resolve easy conflicts where my mixed-work branch introduced bugs
> that I fixed later and have now adopted the fixed code
>
> Then I repeat until I don't have any more good changes in mixed-work
> (either I have nothing, only debugging cruft, or only stuff I haven't
> gotten to work yet). If there's nothing but cruft, I've fully merged the
> topic, and I delete the branch.
>
> Eventually, I'm satisfied with what I've cleaned up, and I do:
> $ git push origin submit:master
>
> Also, I generally have a bunch of "mixed-work" branches, each containing
> different stuff that isn't ready. I'll periodicly go through all of them
> and rebase onto "submit" or "origin/master" (or, sometimes, give up on
> them and delete them).
>
> (One thing that would be nice to have is a "git apply --interactive" which
> applies the user's choice of hunks, like "git add -i" adds them)

I totally agree.

I would appriciate rebase --copy option, which doesn't move, but copy
the changelists like cherry-pick.
Then we could use rebase -i (with edit) instead of apply.

PS
Why after edit in rebase -i the change is already commited? I always
have to reset;add -i

>
>        -Daniel
> *This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Daniel Barkalow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 6752 bytes --]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Łukasz Lew wrote:

> Well, I am still a beginner in git. I just switched from mercurial.
> Some inline follows:
> 
> 2008/12/15 Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>:
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alexander,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 17:06, Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hello, Łukasz!
> >> >
> >> > On 16:38 Sun 14 Dec     , Łukasz Lew wrote:
> >> >> Thanks Nick, thats really helpful (and surprisingly simple).
> >> >> I have a couple more questions:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> >> >> >> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
> >> >> >> - two repositories: pub, priv
> >> >> >> - priv is clone/branch of pub
> >> >> >> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
> >> >> >> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Problem:
> >> >> >> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
> >> >> >> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is it possible to do with git?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
> >> >> > with git?" :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> So I've heard, but not yet experienced it myself. I'm thrilled to try.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
> >> >> > and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
> >> >> > cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
> >> >> > for-public branch.
> >> >>
> >> >> That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits just like in git-add -p?
> >> > It's, however, better to make more commits to not experience the need of
> >> > commit splitting.
> >>
> >> Indeed good advice and best practice, but another best practice is to
> >> not commit not compiling state.
> >
> > In your private branches, it's actually good practice to commit all sorts
> > of junk. That way, when you mess up badly while trying to get it to
> > compile, you won't have lost your work. Of course, that means your commits
> > are going to need more cleanup before going public.
> 
> I started to follow your advise.
> Then I rebase -i.
> I found out I need more precise commit messages. :)

One useful strategy is to have a second shell and do "git show <hash>" to 
figure out what you did in that misc commit.

> >> My common scenario is that I code a big change in priv repository, and
> >> after that I find that some of its parts can and should be moved to
> >> pub.
> >
> > I usually end up with my private branch containing the public branch, plus
> > a bunch of commits that introduce: bugs, later fixed; mixed improvements;
> > and debugging cruft. I want to generate nice commits that are individual
> > improvements. I generally do:
> > $ git checkout -b submit origin/master (the first time, to set it up)
> >
> > $ git checkout submit
> > $ git diff submit mixed-work
> > look at it for good changes, find some in file1 and file2
> > $ git diff submit mixed-work -- file1 file2 | git apply
> 
> But with this command we do not preserve objects identity.
> I.e: when you merge with mixed-work you have duplicate changes.
> Is it ok?

Git is very good about recognizing duplicate changes in 3-way situations. 
That is, merging two branches, each of which makes the same change (on a 
hunk level) to a common ancestor. It'll identify this as "the branches 
agree on a change" rather than "the branches conflict". Also, "rebase" 
will try the 3-way merge mechanism, so it will be able to sort this out.

The interesting case is when both branches have the same logical change, 
but one of them is done better than the other. When you merge these, 
you'll have to select the better one by hand in a conflict resolution.

> > Sometimes, clean up bits that aren't ideal
> > $ git add -i
> > Add the good parts
> > $ git checkout . (revert the working tree to the index)
> > $ make test (did I extract the change correctly?)
> > $ git commit
> > Write a good message, sign off, etc
> > $ git checkout mixed-work
> > $ git rebase -i submit
> 
> ... Ah I see, we throw away old commits anyway with rebasing.

Yup. The old commits are there to save us when we make good changes and 
undo them before getting to a finished state. Once we reach a finished 
state, we intend to throw them away.

> > Often, resolve easy conflicts where my mixed-work branch introduced bugs
> > that I fixed later and have now adopted the fixed code
> >
> > Then I repeat until I don't have any more good changes in mixed-work
> > (either I have nothing, only debugging cruft, or only stuff I haven't
> > gotten to work yet). If there's nothing but cruft, I've fully merged the
> > topic, and I delete the branch.
> >
> > Eventually, I'm satisfied with what I've cleaned up, and I do:
> > $ git push origin submit:master
> >
> > Also, I generally have a bunch of "mixed-work" branches, each containing
> > different stuff that isn't ready. I'll periodicly go through all of them
> > and rebase onto "submit" or "origin/master" (or, sometimes, give up on
> > them and delete them).
> >
> > (One thing that would be nice to have is a "git apply --interactive" which
> > applies the user's choice of hunks, like "git add -i" adds them)
> 
> I totally agree.
> 
> I would appriciate rebase --copy option, which doesn't move, but copy
> the changelists like cherry-pick.

There's work in progress on a generalization of "rebase -i" that could be 
seeded with the "cherry-pick" operations instead of the "rebase" 
operations. I think that's what you'd like. On the other hand, remember 
that you can just make a new branch based on your endpoint and rebase it 
on your upstream; there's no reason that you can't "unzip" the history 
past the point where the branch you're modifying was created.

> Then we could use rebase -i (with edit) instead of apply.
> 
> PS
> Why after edit in rebase -i the change is already commited? I always
> have to reset;add -i

There's (currently) no equivalent of the index (storing the contents of 
the commit in progress) for the message (and author info, etc). On the 
other hand, you can use "git commit --amend" to alter the commit on top 
(including the files), and you can do "git diff HEAD HEAD^ | git apply" to 
get reverts into your worktree that you can add (or not add).

The common case for edit, I think, is that things are mostly correct, but 
there's a wrong change; with the change already committed, it's easy to 
change it to what it should be and "git commit -a --amend".

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Łukasz Lew]

2008/12/17 Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Łukasz Lew wrote:
>
>> Well, I am still a beginner in git. I just switched from mercurial.
>> Some inline follows:
>>
>> 2008/12/15 Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>:
>> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Alexander,
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 17:06, Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hello, Łukasz!
>> >> >
>> >> > On 16:38 Sun 14 Dec     , Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> >> >> Thanks Nick, thats really helpful (and surprisingly simple).
>> >> >> I have a couple more questions:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
>> >> >> >> I don't know how to make such a scenario work:
>> >> >> >> - two repositories: pub, priv
>> >> >> >> - priv is clone/branch of pub
>> >> >> >> - there is some constant developement both in pub and priv
>> >> >> >> - there are regular syncs with pub in priv
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Problem:
>> >> >> >> Occasionally I want to push some changes from priv to pub.
>> >> >> >> Then after syncing with pub I want to get as few conflicts as possible.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Is it possible to do with git?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Git can do almost anything. One should instead ask "How to do this
>> >> >> > with git?" :-)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So I've heard, but not yet experienced it myself. I'm thrilled to try.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
>> >> >> > and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
>> >> >> > cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
>> >> >> > for-public branch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits just like in git-add -p?
>> >> > It's, however, better to make more commits to not experience the need of
>> >> > commit splitting.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed good advice and best practice, but another best practice is to
>> >> not commit not compiling state.
>> >
>> > In your private branches, it's actually good practice to commit all sorts
>> > of junk. That way, when you mess up badly while trying to get it to
>> > compile, you won't have lost your work. Of course, that means your commits
>> > are going to need more cleanup before going public.
>>
>> I started to follow your advise.
>> Then I rebase -i.
>> I found out I need more precise commit messages. :)
>
> One useful strategy is to have a second shell and do "git show <hash>" to
> figure out what you did in that misc commit.

Indeed!

>
>> >> My common scenario is that I code a big change in priv repository, and
>> >> after that I find that some of its parts can and should be moved to
>> >> pub.
>> >
>> > I usually end up with my private branch containing the public branch, plus
>> > a bunch of commits that introduce: bugs, later fixed; mixed improvements;
>> > and debugging cruft. I want to generate nice commits that are individual
>> > improvements. I generally do:
>> > $ git checkout -b submit origin/master (the first time, to set it up)
>> >
>> > $ git checkout submit
>> > $ git diff submit mixed-work
>> > look at it for good changes, find some in file1 and file2
>> > $ git diff submit mixed-work -- file1 file2 | git apply
>>
>> But with this command we do not preserve objects identity.
>> I.e: when you merge with mixed-work you have duplicate changes.
>> Is it ok?
>
> Git is very good about recognizing duplicate changes in 3-way situations.
> That is, merging two branches, each of which makes the same change (on a
> hunk level) to a common ancestor. It'll identify this as "the branches
> agree on a change" rather than "the branches conflict". Also, "rebase"
> will try the 3-way merge mechanism, so it will be able to sort this out.

I found that already. And I have to say that I am delighted.
This is absolutely splendid.

>
> The interesting case is when both branches have the same logical change,
> but one of them is done better than the other. When you merge these,
> you'll have to select the better one by hand in a conflict resolution.
>
>> > Sometimes, clean up bits that aren't ideal
>> > $ git add -i
>> > Add the good parts
>> > $ git checkout . (revert the working tree to the index)
>> > $ make test (did I extract the change correctly?)
>> > $ git commit
>> > Write a good message, sign off, etc
>> > $ git checkout mixed-work
>> > $ git rebase -i submit
>>
>> ... Ah I see, we throw away old commits anyway with rebasing.
>
> Yup. The old commits are there to save us when we make good changes and
> undo them before getting to a finished state. Once we reach a finished
> state, we intend to throw them away.
>
>> > Often, resolve easy conflicts where my mixed-work branch introduced bugs
>> > that I fixed later and have now adopted the fixed code
>> >
>> > Then I repeat until I don't have any more good changes in mixed-work
>> > (either I have nothing, only debugging cruft, or only stuff I haven't
>> > gotten to work yet). If there's nothing but cruft, I've fully merged the
>> > topic, and I delete the branch.
>> >
>> > Eventually, I'm satisfied with what I've cleaned up, and I do:
>> > $ git push origin submit:master
>> >
>> > Also, I generally have a bunch of "mixed-work" branches, each containing
>> > different stuff that isn't ready. I'll periodicly go through all of them
>> > and rebase onto "submit" or "origin/master" (or, sometimes, give up on
>> > them and delete them).
>> >
>> > (One thing that would be nice to have is a "git apply --interactive" which
>> > applies the user's choice of hunks, like "git add -i" adds them)
>>
>> I totally agree.
>>
>> I would appriciate rebase --copy option, which doesn't move, but copy
>> the changelists like cherry-pick.
>
> There's work in progress on a generalization of "rebase -i" that could be
> seeded with the "cherry-pick" operations instead of the "rebase"
> operations. I think that's what you'd like.

I always wanted to have system that would allow me manipulation of
patches as features.
I.e: I have one patch for feature X, one for Y, one for debugging X,
one for debugging Y, etc.
Then I would just pick some of them, work with them to create new ones.

The basic operations would be use/unuse patch, combine sequence of
patches into one (with commit messages of subpatches saved somewhere),
uncombine patch into sequence of patches.
Easy way of spliting atomic patch (diff) into several more so I can
add more commit messages.

Now this would resemble directory structure, I could copy/move/remove
patches from/to various bigger packs of patches. Merging would detect
duplicates of course.

Git took me for the first time close to this ideal.

> On the other hand, remember
> that you can just make a new branch based on your endpoint and rebase it
> on your upstream; there's no reason that you can't "unzip" the history
> past the point where the branch you're modifying was created.

I never thought about that. It works indeed.

>
>> Then we could use rebase -i (with edit) instead of apply.
>>
>> PS
>> Why after edit in rebase -i the change is already commited? I always
>> have to reset;add -i
>
> There's (currently) no equivalent of the index (storing the contents of
> the commit in progress) for the message (and author info, etc). On the
> other hand, you can use "git commit --amend" to alter the commit on top
> (including the files), and you can do "git diff HEAD HEAD^ | git apply" to
> get reverts into your worktree that you can add (or not add).

Good idea, thanks.
BTW is it diff | apply the same as revert --no-commit?

>
> The common case for edit, I think, is that things are mostly correct, but
> there's a wrong change; with the change already committed, it's easy to
> change it to what it should be and "git commit -a --amend".
>
>        -Daniel
> *This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Daniel Barkalow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 5090 bytes --]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Łukasz Lew wrote:

> >> > Often, resolve easy conflicts where my mixed-work branch introduced bugs
> >> > that I fixed later and have now adopted the fixed code
> >> >
> >> > Then I repeat until I don't have any more good changes in mixed-work
> >> > (either I have nothing, only debugging cruft, or only stuff I haven't
> >> > gotten to work yet). If there's nothing but cruft, I've fully merged the
> >> > topic, and I delete the branch.
> >> >
> >> > Eventually, I'm satisfied with what I've cleaned up, and I do:
> >> > $ git push origin submit:master
> >> >
> >> > Also, I generally have a bunch of "mixed-work" branches, each containing
> >> > different stuff that isn't ready. I'll periodicly go through all of them
> >> > and rebase onto "submit" or "origin/master" (or, sometimes, give up on
> >> > them and delete them).
> >> >
> >> > (One thing that would be nice to have is a "git apply --interactive" which
> >> > applies the user's choice of hunks, like "git add -i" adds them)
> >>
> >> I totally agree.
> >>
> >> I would appriciate rebase --copy option, which doesn't move, but copy
> >> the changelists like cherry-pick.
> >
> > There's work in progress on a generalization of "rebase -i" that could be
> > seeded with the "cherry-pick" operations instead of the "rebase"
> > operations. I think that's what you'd like.
> 
> I always wanted to have system that would allow me manipulation of
> patches as features.
> I.e: I have one patch for feature X, one for Y, one for debugging X,
> one for debugging Y, etc.
> Then I would just pick some of them, work with them to create new ones.
> 
> The basic operations would be use/unuse patch, combine sequence of
> patches into one (with commit messages of subpatches saved somewhere),
> uncombine patch into sequence of patches.
> Easy way of spliting atomic patch (diff) into several more so I can
> add more commit messages.
> 
> Now this would resemble directory structure, I could copy/move/remove
> patches from/to various bigger packs of patches. Merging would detect
> duplicates of course.
> 
> Git took me for the first time close to this ideal.

Git works from the point of view of a developer producing the ideal 
development history that doesn;t (necessarily) include false starts, bugs 
fixed in private, and changes mixed together. Or rather, git allows a 
developer to make commits again knowing the full outcome of the series.

It also works from the point of view of a maintainer who merges or does 
not merge the output of developers working in this mode.

It doesn't really quite handle the work of an integrator whose work is to 
manage a patch queue. I think it needs some additional tools which allow 
the user do work which consists of operations like "replace this 
patch/branch with a new version", "suppress this patch/branch", "reorder 
these patches/branches", and the main thing: "produce a version of my 
current series with conflict resolutions"

This would actually be really helpful to have explicitly represented, so 
that people could actually bisect the -mm series to find the operation 
that Andrew did that caused a problem to enter the series, which would be 
something like adding a patch that doesn't work with other patches in the 
series. Note that this is different from bisecting within the failing 
state of the -mm tree, which finds where the series seen as a difference 
from mainline, fails; if you know that -mm yesterday works and -mm today 
fails, the difference might be that a branch merged early in the series 
was updated to a version incompatible with a branch later in the series 
that hasn't changed, and you'd want to finger the update rather than the 
point in the series where kernels start failing.

> > On the other hand, remember
> > that you can just make a new branch based on your endpoint and rebase it
> > on your upstream; there's no reason that you can't "unzip" the history
> > past the point where the branch you're modifying was created.
> 
> I never thought about that. It works indeed.

There's a lot you can do when branches are as cheap and flexible as git's 
branches are.

> >> Then we could use rebase -i (with edit) instead of apply.
> >>
> >> PS
> >> Why after edit in rebase -i the change is already commited? I always
> >> have to reset;add -i
> >
> > There's (currently) no equivalent of the index (storing the contents of
> > the commit in progress) for the message (and author info, etc). On the
> > other hand, you can use "git commit --amend" to alter the commit on top
> > (including the files), and you can do "git diff HEAD HEAD^ | git apply" to
> > get reverts into your worktree that you can add (or not add).
> 
> Good idea, thanks.
> BTW is it diff | apply the same as revert --no-commit?

Largely, although you can give the diff/apply pair paths you want to 
revert, and not revert the whole thing. And the second commit can be 
anything with the diff/apply pair, not just HEAD^, which is what revert 
does, so it's a worthwhile generalization to understand.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: How to maintain private/secret/confidential branch.

[Sitaram Chamarty]

On 2008-12-14, Łukasz Lew <lukasz.lew@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 15:55, Nick Andrew <nick@nick-andrew.net> wrote:
>> If I understand your problem, you could solve it with git cherry-pick
>> and rebase. On priv, make a for-public branch from a pub branch. Then
>> cherry-pick the commits you want from your private branch into the
>> for-public branch.
>
> That almost works. Can I somehow split existing commits
> just like in git-add -p?

This is going to sound weird to some seasoned folks, and I'm
hoping to hear better ways of doing this.  But having done
stuff like this, I once wrote it up and here're my notes:

To split just the top commit into multiple commits:
    * start git gui
    * choose "amend last commit" from the commit menu
    * unstage all files (meaning you click on the little
      icons so they move from the left-bottom panel to the
      left-top panel)
    * pick files or hunks in files to stage and commit the
      usual way
    * continue all changes are committed

To split a commit that is *not* the top one:
    * start an interactive rebase that includes that commit
    * mark that commit as "edit" and start the rebase
    * when the rebase pauses, use git gui as described above

To combine a set of commits and split the result in some
other way (meaning you have commits A B P Q C D R E S and you
want to make them A B C D X Y Z where X+Y+Z = P+Q+R+S!)
    * start an interactive rebase
    * move lines as appropriate (in the editor) so the
      commits P,Q,R,S are together
    * choose "squash" on the second and subsequent ones and
      start the rebase
    * (dirty trick warning) when the editor for the combined
      commit message pops up, delete ALL the lines and save
    * use git gui as above
    * then continue the rebase

Hope this helps...