From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:35:35 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Revised custodian git writeup In-Reply-To: <4795F081.5050204@ge.com> References: <20080122085533.696E924781@gemini.denx.de> <4795F081.5050204@ge.com> Message-ID: <4795FF37.5000607@ge.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Jerry Van Baren wrote: > Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Hello, >> >> in message <47954A7D.4070507@gmail.com> you wrote: >>> I've rewritten the "Tips for maintaining custodian trees" section to >>> reflect Wolfgang's request that the "master" branch be used for patches >>> for him to pull. >>> >>> Conceptually, this is very different from my previous recommendation / >>> methodology writeup. In practice, however, it is a trivial change. The >>> fundamental difference is to create a separate branch ("uboot") to track >>> the master repo and rebase the "master" branch against that, instead of >>> vice versa. >> Rebasing the master branch, i. e. the one I'll be pullung from? >> >> Are you sure that is a good idea? Note that I (and probably others) >> will be pulling from that branch, and not only once! >> >> Quote from the git-rebase man page: >> >> ... >> NOTES >> When you rebase a branch, you are changing its history in a >> way that will cause problems for anyone who already has a copy >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> of the branch in their repository and tries to pull updates >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> from you. You should understand the implications of using git >> ^^^^^^^^^ >> rebase on a repository that you share. >> ... >> >> Best regards, >> Wolfgang Denk > > Well, that is what I understood you to be asking for, and it worked this > past merge window. That could have been luck, but I suspect not. > > The conflicting requirements are: > 1) Wolfgang wishes to pull from the subrepo "master" branch > 2) Subrepository custodians must rebase to pull the latest changes and > fix any merge conflicts so that Wolfgang's pulls don't have merge conflicts. > > I don't believe the rebasing will cause problems because the rebasing is > pulling from the u-boot.git master repository (or possibly > u-boot-testing.git) which is rebuilding the subrepo "uboot" branch to > match the u-boot.git master, and then rebasing the subrepo "master" > based on the u-boot.git master. This will make the subrepo "master" > *match* the u-boot.git master *plus* append the new patches to be pulled. > > I think the difference with our use vs. the general case that the > warning applies to is that the custodians are making their "master" > branch conform exactly to the u-boot.git master branch and then adding > on the patches to be pulled. Adding to this thought, rebasing a custodian repo rewrites its history *to match the master u-boot.git repo* (and then add to it). Based on my limited knowledge and experience, I think that is a *good* thing. If we don't "rewrite" our custodian histories to match the master u-boot.git repo history, very quickly it will be impossible to compare the custodian repo to the master because the patches will be in different order. We are your slaves, gvb