On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:48:44 +0100 Mark Kretschmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Torgny Nyblom <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:21:17 +0100 > > Mark Kretschmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Ian Monroe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:55, Mark Kretschmann <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Torgny Nyblom <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:39:52 +0100 > >> >>> Mark Kretschmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Hey folks, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I have a small request regarding git.kde.org, it resulted from a > >> >>>> discussion with Chani: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Problem is, we cannot currently force-push on branches, nor can we > >> >>>> delete them. I can understand that this is done for safety reasons, > >> >>>> but it does not fit everyone's work flow. E.g. I tend to rebase a lot, > >> >>>> and that does not work without force pushing. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So, Chani and I came up with this idea: We could allow force-pushing > >> >>>> and deleting on branches (shares branches need communication anyway), > >> >>>> but we could disallow it for master. This way, not much harm can be > >> >>>> done, but it allows for a more flexible work flow. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thoughts? > >> >>> > >> >>> It would have to be a per branch setting as for instance KDE 4.7 will > >> >>> probably be in a lot of git branches and quite some harm can be done > >> >>> with force push/branch deletion there. > >> >> > >> >> My view is this: If you share a branch with others, you *need* to > >> >> communicate anyway. I you just rebase it, of course that will do harm. > >> >> > >> >> So you don't rebase on branches that you want for cooperation, simple > >> >> as that. I think that a "per branch" setting would cause a lot of > >> >> work... > >> > > >> > Rebasing a 4.7 branch over master would be a horrible thing to have > >> > happen. So it really can't be allowed for version branches. > >> > >> That I can agree with. However, version branches are not of direct > >> importance to every developer. Ideally, some Git Ninja should watch > >> over them, and maybe do the merges, or revert things. > >> > >> Personally I work on feature branches, and without force-pushing, the > >> branches are entirely useless to me. You could argue that I should > >> simply use a public clone and do there whatever I want. But then, what > >> are the branches good for? De facto, they are currently being used for > >> doing features, and not only release management. > > > > Yes and all of this would be covered with "per branch" settings. > > How this is implemented is another thing, it could be "branches that match > > regexp" and rules foo and other rules bar. > > You have a point there. How about this: > > Per default, force-pushing is allowed in branches. But some important > branches (like version branches) become protected. > > Is that a workable compromise? Works for me. /Torgny _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
