On 05/13/2011 09:05 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
<d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote:
On 05/13/2011 12:36 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
<d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote:
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
merged twice; all commits show up two times.
It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same changes
merged OK, but we shouldn't make this a habit. For instance, the openMP
commits also show up as part of vitja's pull request, which is confusing.
In Mercurial speak: The openmp branch was used like you would use a
Mercurial "patch queue" in one case, and as a branch in another case. In
git
they are the same technically and you rely on conventions to make sure
you
don't treat a "queue" as a "branch".
OPTION A) Either i) only branch from master, or ii) make sure you agree
with
whoever you're branching from that this is a "branch", not a "patch
queue",
so that it isn't rebased under your feet.
We could also, say, prepend all patch queues with an underscore (its
private).
OPTION B) Stop rebasing. I'd have a very hard time doing that myself, but
nobody are pulling from dagss/cython these days anyway.
What about:
OPTION C) The one who pushes things into the master knows master
enough to see whether or not it makes sense to merge this, or if it
was already in, he/she will simply comment into the pull request and
close it manually
This doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure you read the scenario correctly?
You wrote:
"
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
merged twice; all commits show up two times.
"
So somebody pushed in Marks' patches twice. My OPTION C) is that the
one, who pushes patches in is responsible to make sure that they only
get pushed in once.
That's what we do in sympy, we don't have any formal option A or B,
but people with push access must prove that they are capable of using
git, and not breaking (or messing up) things. Of course, everybody can
make a mistake though.
It seems to be working just great, so I just wanted to share our
experience. Let me know what doesn't make sense.
Ah ok. So in this case, the reviewer would have to request that the
second pull request was fixed/rebased. I guess that is still the safety
mechanism, but it's nice to also discuss how to not get into those
situations. I'm not saying that there will be serious repercussions if
one doesn't follow the rules, I was more talking guidelines for not
getting into trouble without having to learn all of git.
Note that a big part of this thread was to actually make sure everybody
(in particular the core devs) knew about how Git rebasing works. The
mistake was made in the first place because the reviewer assumed that
"git will figure this out". Keep in mind that we just switched, and I
think some core devs are still using hg-git, for instance.
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
cython-devel mailing list
cython-devel@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
