Dne 06. 05. 20 v 16:15 Robbie Harwood napsal(a): > Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> writes: > >> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 21:26 Robbie Harwood napsal(a): >>> Tomas Tomecek <ttome...@redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns. >>>> >>>> Before I reply, I'd like to stress that we are still in a prototype >>>> phase - not everything is solved (clearly) and at this point, we >>>> experiment with the workflow mostly. >>>> >>>> Luckily, force-pushes are not allowed in dist-git, >>> That's a "current state of affairs" statement, not an ideal, as I >>> understand it. Assuming that force-pushes aren't allowed means we'll >>> never be able to have, e.g., non-distro branches (for testing etc.) >>> that we can force push. >>> >>> This has been a pain point with RHEL dist-git; among other things, it >>> means that branches can't be deleted. >> That this is problem only when you cannot use PRs. If you can use PRs, >> pushing some random branches into remote git repo is the biggest sin >> IMO, because while you might delete the branch in remote repo once it >> is not needed, I have this branch very likely pulled to my repo and >> the amount of branches in my local repo I have no clue about just >> rises. So if deleting branches was a point of RHEL dist-git, then this >> is sad news for me. Pushing branches was probably useful in CVS days, >> but that should not be the case anymore. > Well, your workflow is not my workflow.
Probably. But applying CVS workflow to Git workflow with PR is probably not the best idea. > > I very often have to ship test builds (bugfixes, new features, > compatibility testing, ...). Yes, the build itself goes in COPR most of > the time (or scratch on brewkoji), but the source needs to live > somewhere - and I'd prefer it be "not just my laptop". Right, then can live in your fork and that does not necessarily means your local copy. More likely it is remote as it commonly understood. > > A branch disappearing on the remote doesn't break anything. You don't > lose your local copy. Even a force push is pretty easy to adjust to > (git reset or git rebase). This happens all the time for development > branches and I honestly doubt you notice. Force pushes are only a > problem if you're basing work on the branch. I am not concerned about remote branches disappearing. I am concerned about the complete opposite, when the remote branches appearing in my local copy and not disappearing once the remote copies go. > > But sure, maybe I'm sinning by doing my job. More pull requests won't > help either way. Honestly, this is not necessarily about PRs, but about work organization. I would argue the doing pushes into your fork or into the origin makes no difference for the workflow. At the end the changes has to appear somehow in the origin/master and PR is just one of the mechanisms. But doing pushes into origin/somebranch might have negative impact on my workflow which is not what I like. It has also negative impact on yourself, because then you want to be able to force push to delete or update the branch, while in my fork, it is not concern at all, because I am free to do there whatever I want, including force push. Vít
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
