From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rustom Mody Subject: Re: git workflow for fully distributed mini-teams Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:33:49 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20090916164356.GB24893@vidovic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE To: Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 17 09:03:57 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MoB24-0005Ht-QP for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:03:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756145AbZIQHDr convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:03:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755976AbZIQHDr (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:03:47 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f190.google.com ([209.85.222.190]:33552 "EHLO mail-pz0-f190.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756006AbZIQHDq convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:03:46 -0400 Received: by pzk28 with SMTP id 28so1079340pzk.5 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:03:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=apd63CT9HRJKvwE3c+7zd2ttWRYdoiKc5ymMwq+0lqE=; b=PS/OkOdIXtaLiqXvFL9vtRO5agpdKICCvVkBWhkf+ToAglj5DszYwUXAV5kyGjQtq/ VvxRAFDKkS7In9qlWDKczKS66mQM9BOzrZrd0D7oXJL2EOOeg9bWJt7vOfXjorCCJt2b ouVSb5KlnLn+PZHKKOPVvYBUK26OmpTkw+wDg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VXosJ39CE0pJ1ouXkqDV/fk4OOMzY1lhJZFzTX4duww0s1VxCYM5/VnQOPthT/u3UE UmiVhb8m39+/IcujkonwxKQvA5GeRB4tqkEVLVUSLVlkrDYglAq0lHpJWqwSn3Odx5YI cDlkgBZKZybB295CzEvr+2wqURIyWqrV13zXY= Received: by 10.114.18.4 with SMTP id 4mr17971349war.137.1253171029403; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:03:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090916164356.GB24893@vidovic> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Rustom Mody wrote: > By fully distributed I mean theres no central repo -- not for pushing > or even pulling; all communication is by email. > By mini-team I mean: Not more than 5 programmers. On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > > > Also, I see a duplication of the same work for all the developers in = a > team: "merge my topics with topics from others". This could be solved > with one more common repository wich could stand as a "virtual > maintainer repository" where each developer could release any topic. > Topics that don't need any more work would have to be merged in a > dedicated public branch ("next"?) for testing, and topics that aren't > good enough into another dedicated branch ("pu"?). So, each developer > would have to push publishable merges into this repository. This way, > everyone could use the merges done by another developer (by doing a > fetch and rebasing of his current work on top of it). Push? Fetch? How without a common repo? [Sorry if this is totally noob= !] > > Notice that this is all about "everybody uses the same base for his > current work" (to avoid per-developer scratch on merges) and "don't l= et > everyone do the same work on his own" (to avoid duplicate work). > >> What about checkpointing and restoring from botches? > > I think this is be easily doable (against your described workflow) wi= th > good conventions in branch names. Topics like "pending-topicA", > "pending-topicB", etc that would have to be merged (using a script) i= nto > a "all pending topics" branch should do what you want, no? =A0Restori= ng > from botches would mean removing the crappy branch and re-execute the > script. I am really concerned about things like: A commited something on the B branch, received a patch from B. That patch did not apply (or worse it applied -- on top of A's!) So ideally there should be an option that says (when A is on B branch and tries to commit) "Sorry buddy -- No commits here!"