2017-08-11 17:17 GMT+02:00 Christian Mauderer <l...@c-mauderer.de>:

> Am 11.08.2017 um 12:14 schrieb Denis Obrezkov:
> > 2017-08-11 11:53 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Huber
> > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
> > <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>>:
> >
> >     On 11/08/17 11:44, Denis Obrezkov wrote:
> >
> >         during our last meeting I didn't completely understand what to do
> >         with my commits.
> >
> >         I have a set of commits made during the GSoC, they are, of
> course,
> >         a bit chaotic. And the only last few commits make my code look
> >         better.
> >         So, I have a question: should I take all my commits,
> >         merge them into one big commit which changes the state of the
> code
> >         from the initial to the current state? Or how should I clean my
> >         commit history?
> >
> >
> >     Ideally, there should be a patch set, that can be integrated into
> >     RTEMS with clean, self-contained, well described and easy to review
> >     patches.
> >
> >     --
> >     Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
> >
> >     Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
> >     Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16 <tel:%2B49%2089%20189%2047%2041-16>
> >     Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09 <tel:%2B49%2089%20189%2047%2041-09>
> >     E-Mail  : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
> >     <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>
> >     PGP     : Public key available on request.
> >
> >     Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
> >
> >
> > Would it be appropriate to provide a set of patches, for example,
> > for uart, clock and linkcmd related code, but without saving a commit
> > history?
> > I mean - to make a git reset --mixed and then make new commits with
> > relatively
> > clean code.
> > > --
> > Regards, Denis Obrezkov
> >
> Hello Denis,
> if I understood you correct, that would be the right form for your
> patches. Just remember that you must never change a commit that is
> already in the public master branch. So as long as you are in your own
> development repository you can merge patches. Like Sebastian said, the
> final patches should be compilable, readable and contain only one feature.
> It's good practice to do the rework of the patches on an extra branch or
> rename the old branch so that it is still there for reference.
> Let me shortly describe my typical workflow. Maybe that makes it clear:
> If I implement a new feature, the first for me is to create a branch. If
> you haven't done that, that is no problem. Then your branch is just your
> local "master".
> I then make a lot of intermediate commits. Most of the time, the commit
> message is just a rough note for myself, what I have done. Often it's
> quite short. Something like "FIXME: Partial function xyz()." If you
> would check out any of them, a lot wouldn't even compile.
> As soon as my feature is done, I create a new branch from that (so I can
> keep the old for backup) and then I start to reorder and squash the
> commits on this new branch together. My preferred method for that is a
> "git rebase origin/master" (or on top of the commit before I branched
> the feature). If something goes wrong during the rebase (which happens
> more often then I would like) I just check out my old backup branch and
> do the rebase again.
> Most of the time, I check the result of the rebase with a "git diff
> my-old-branch" to make sure I didn't loose any changes.
> After the rebase, I have only very few (often only one or two) commits
> left. All of these commits should be compilable. Every commit contains a
> set of changes that belongs together. It's quite possible that it is
> only one patch that adds exactly one driver without the whole history
> how I developed that driver. That patch will be sent to the mailing list.
> That works quite well for a feature that is developed by a single
> person. There are some other cases too:
> If you imported some files from other sources, you should check in these
> sources unchanged in one commit (ideally don't add them to a Makefile or
> similar so that the whole tree is still compilable) and then add your
> changes and enable the compile process in a separate one. So it is easy
> to see what has been changed and maybe update to a more recent version
> of the original sources.
> If someone provided parts of the development, you should handle the
> commits of that person in a way that the author is still clearly stated.
> I'm sure there are a lot of other edge cases. But these two are the most
> common ones for me.
> Please don't hesitate to ask if something isn't clear.
> Kind regards
> Christian Mauderer

Thanks, I am pretty familiar with the workflow, I just wanted to know,
should I keep
my commits history (may be there is such a requirement for GSoC)?

Regards, Denis Obrezkov
devel mailing list

Reply via email to