On 2012-05-21 12:14:44 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:18:39AM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote:
> > On 2012-05-18 19:05:05 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > --- a/doc/git-howto.texi
> > > +++ b/doc/git-howto.texi
> > > @@ -346,6 +346,58 @@ git checkout -b svn_23456 $SHA1
> > >
> > > +@chapter pre-push checklist
> > > +
> > > +Once you have a set of commits that you feel are ready for pushing,
> > > +work through the following checklist to doublecheck everything is in
> > > +proper order.
> >
> > I honestly think the wording and the checklist is way too strict for
> > most commits. Strictly following it for every commit is nonsense and
> > I'd guess nobody will do it.
>
> Really? I do it for all batches of commits that I push. Now I certainly
> do not mind common sense being applied, but such a checklist should cover
> all bases and not teach you how to cut corners from the outset.
the writer of the checklist excluded ;)
I usually don't make a 'make clean' before pushing unless I have Makefile
or configure changes. I do a push -n and look at the git log -p of the
reported changes.
> > > +@itemize
> > > +@item @command{make distclean}
> >
> > When is a make clean not enough?
> >
> > > +@item @command{./configure}
> >
> > without distclean this could be a simple make config which would handle
> > out of source tree builds and other required configure options just
> > fine.
>
> Supposedly 'make distclean' returns you to a vanilla source tree. I like
> it because it forces you to do a fresh configure run and stray options
> you might have in there will not throw off your test results.
Some might have configure options which are required to test the changes
cross builds or a non-standard CC come to mind first.
> > > +@item @command{make check}
> > > +@end itemize
> > > +
> > > +While the test suite covers a wide range of possible problems, it is not
> > > +a panacea. Do not hesitate to perform any tests necessary to convince
> > > +yourself the changes you are about to push actually work as expected.
> >
> > you fail to mention that every commit is expected to pass make check
>
> You mean every single commit or the fact that errors from "make check"
> should not be ignored and commits pushed regardless?
every single commit instead of just the state at the end of a series
of commits being pushed.
>
> > > +Finally, after pushing, mark all patches as committed on
> > > +@url{http://patches.libav.org/ patchwork}.
> > > +Sometimes this is not automatically done when a patch has been
> > > +slightly modified from the version on the mailing list.
> >
> > git push reports for every commit if it could match a patch. Updating
> > not revisions of the patch on patchwork is also a good idea if not
> > done earlier.
>
> "not revisions"?
s/not/old/
Janne
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
