2014-04-25 17:38 GMT+02:00 GOUBIER Thierry <[email protected]>: > Hi Nicolas, > > from what you describe (double merge: one in git, one in MC), I wonder if > my decision to maintain compatibility between gitfiletree and FileTree by > writing the metadata (version / methodProperties) in gitfiletree is a good > thing? > > Thierry > > Very good question indeed. This is spoiling the efficiency of git for merging... I think that the answer is yes though, because not every one is using git (think Eliot's branch). Esteban is not publishing the MC packages back on SmalltalkHub for nothing.
Those MC package would not be usable if they loosed their history, and I'm not sure that we are ready to loose that... Yet, resolving the (real code) merge conflicts in an external tool does not feel so cool to me, I'd like to specify git mergetool --pharo ;) Another way would be to not attempt a merge at all via git, it would be simpler to just pick the mc package somewhere, but I don't like it, we're loosing git traceability (and those nice github networks). Otherwise, if development was exclusively git driven, then we would be more comfortable with git tools. But still, we have the image which is a working copy, and not necessarily in sync with gitfiletree, so we have a more complex process than file based environments anyway : one more indirection. image <-> files <-> staged files <-> repo There is still one super-cool feature where git shines that we can use: jumping from one branch to another (modulo the image sync with files), the most usefull one IMO when we are mixing external platform files and Smalltalk code that require some sync. Nicolas ------------------------------ > *De :* Pharo-dev [[email protected]] de la part de > Nicolas Cellier [[email protected]] > *Envoyé :* vendredi 25 avril 2014 15:46 > *À :* Pharo Development List > *Objet :* Re: [Pharo-dev] Modifications to be integrated in Pharo 3.0 VM > > > 2014-04-25 11:26 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Nicolas, >> >> I cannot approve your pull requests because there are conflicts (I >> suspects is all the same conflict). >> >> can you fix them? >> >> thanks, >> Esteban >> > > Hi Esteban, > I don't think there is a single source code conflict... > But of course, there is allways 1 conflict : the MC meta information > mc/VMMaker-oscog.package/monticello.meta/version > > Since the branch was not forked from latest master, every other feature > branch will rot as soon as you integrate the first one. > That's the major limitation of gitfiletree. > > The way I found to workaround this is to : > > git checkout master > start an image in interactive mode, make sure to have current version > from gitfiletree loaded > > git fetch someRepo someBranch > git checkout someBranch > From the image, open git file tree and copy modifiedPackage in local MC > package-cache > > git checkout master > git merge someBranch > git mergetool > answer remote/local as you like for .meta/version and say [y] it's fixed > (you'll overwrite it soon after) > > From the image MC merge modifiedPackage copy from the package-cache > Republish the merged package in gitfiletree > git commit -a -m "Merge pull request #... (fix someBranch)" > > That's a bit heavier than a pure MC workflow, but it's bearable IMO... > > Tell me if this sounds clear enough. > > Another possibility is to do the exact mirror of this operation : merge > master branch in each someBranch. > But I don't think it's viable : > 1) If I have 10 branches, and don't know in which order you want to > integrate, then I'll have to do it 10+9+8+... times - that's 45 times this > operation > 2) If I know the order, I'll do that job in a single someBranch, it is > exactly the mirror of above operation : merge master into someBranch rather > than someBranch into master. But then it's both fragile (it can rot at any > time if you decide to interleave another fix), and it is against the spirit > of git : the feature branch should carry the minimum of changes IMO. > > The only advantage of this approach is to reduce the bottleneck effect > by reducing the work performed by the integrator, especially if you are > alone to cope with this burden... Unfortunately I'm out of time right now. > > I wanted to blog about it, but blogging is taking time... Hope my > explanations help. > > Cheers > >
