Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: > On Jun 16, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >>>> Are you going to add the appropriate upstream workflow to all the >>>> --download packages? This sounds intractable. >>> >>> I am not putting upstream workflow into any download packages. I am >>> wanting to do something very simple, let —download-xxx replace me >>> manually git clone xxxx; git checkout yyyy on some package. That is >>> all. (Where yyy may be a branch or a commit-hash depending on the >>> circumstances). >> >> It clones and checks out the commit. You can checkout the BRANCH >> (branches are all about how the upstream package CHANGES) when you want >> to contribute upstream (and you're entirely on your own to match up with >> their workflow). Why is that not sufficient? > > Since —download-xxx can already track a branch
I don't want that because tracking a branch is a broken model. It is just not enforced because "git checkout branchname" works just as well as "git checkout commit-hash". > the only thing that is missing is managing merges from these > branches into next and master so that things don’t break and don’t > require people to remember “oh since I am tracking a moab branch I > have to be really careful when I merge into next/master and > manually fix things”. Forget the merge problem, this is already a broken model at square one. There is no reproducibility or reviewability. > Ideally it would automatically switch from branch to commit-hash on > such merges in xxx.py It should always use a commit. The branch can change and be deleted later. The commit is permanent so long as it has been accepted. > If that is not possible then it would print a useful message to the > screen telling one to manually fix the xxx.py commit-hash to the > appropriate value when I do the merge. > > Since you and Satish just go on and on about how this is a bad idea > instead of just telling me how to make git do this I have to assume > that git cannot do it and you guys are just trying to find > rationalizations of why I would not want to do this rather than > just admitting git cannot do it. So I don't care what the tool can do because it's a broken model. A commit hook can check for compatibility, but it's not supposed to modify the tree (and I think that doing so would be a sin due to ambiguous specification).
pgp3Sbv2yT27B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
