I recommend "git push apache : -n" where 'apache' is the name I have given the asf remote and ':' indicates to push matching branches, and -n is dry run.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > Definitely avoid git push --all. I don't think the order is well > defined. But, I do agree that a good workflow is to do all the merges > in order, then go back and do all the pushes in order. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I think the difference in workflow is that some committers push and > merge > >> branches one at a time, while other committers merge everything locally > and > >> then push all at once. I strongly prefer the second approach. > >> > > > > The second approach is best. Still need to be careful. AFAICT git push > > -all is not an atomic operation across all branches. Need to push the > > oldest branch first. Will 'git push -all' do this? If not, then should > > push branches in correct order. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > I agree you definitely don't want to be skipping specific commits when > >> > merging... but that's not what Mike nor I suggested. Rather, our > >> > suggestion was that you can do a regular merge of any parentage, > >> > before doing a -sours merge of your commit. > >> > > >> > To John's point, this is essentially what the previous committer > >> > should have done (in this case, me) before your commit arrived. > >> > However, there is a race condition here... and the previous committer > >> > may be in the process of doing this when you come on the scene. So, > >> > you should always be extra careful about merging.... especially with > >> > -sours. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Christopher L Tubbs II > >> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Bill Havanki < > [email protected] > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > John's strategy can certainly work [1]. I don't think it's a good > idea > >> to > >> > > make it a typical part of workflow, though. It's complicated, and I > >> don't > >> > > want to have to look back through the history before each merge (3 > of > >> > them > >> > > for a 1.4 change) for commits to skip. > >> > > > >> > > Also, skipped commits are still left behind, unmergeable, requiring > a > >> > > cherry-pick to be rescued later. So, to be safe, you'd have to wait > to > >> > find > >> > > out what to do with them before skipping. > >> > > > >> > > I don't know a better tactic, but I have the feeling it must involve > >> less > >> > > branches or less merging. > >> > > > >> > > [1] > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/727994/git-skipping-specific-commits-when-merging > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> As Mike pointed out, you can't do it if there is unmerged parents. > You > >> > >> have to merge the parents first, then your commit. If there's any > >> > >> commits which are children of the commit you want to merge with > >> > >> -sours, you can single out your specific commit by referencing the > >> > >> sha1 in the merge instead of the branch name. That will leave the > >> > >> children unmerged, still, but will isolate your -sours to just that > >> > >> commit. Then you can merge the remaining children in a separate > merge. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Bill Havanki < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Popping this out of JIRA since I am changing the subject > somewhat. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Christopher (or anyone, really): Can you give me an example of > >> doing a > >> > >> > merge with -sours but only with specific commits, as > recommended? It > >> > >> makes > >> > >> > sense that this is safer vs. sweeping in HEAD. Just trying to > refine > >> > my > >> > >> > workflow. Thanks! > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Bill > >> > >> > > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > >> > From: Christopher Tubbs (JIRA) <[email protected]> > >> > >> > Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM > >> > >> > Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1961) Fix trivial > >> > compiler/javadoc > >> > >> > warnings > >> > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > >> > > >> > >> > [ > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1961?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13905940#comment-13905940 > >> > >> ] > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-1961: > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > > >> > >> > It looks like you are right. Be careful about -sours. You should > >> > probably > >> > >> > only use that with specific commits, not the HEAD of the branch, > >> which > >> > >> > could reference multiple commits. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Don't worry about fixing it. I'll redo. There's some other > javadoc > >> > >> > errors/warnings and other trivial warnings in master that need > to be > >> > >> fixed > >> > >> > anyway. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > | - - - > >> > > | Bill Havanki > >> > > | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions > >> > > | - - - > >> > > >> >
