Re: [Potlatch-dev] Git starter?
Steve Bennett wrote: Ok, so Richard runs the debug repository, Tom runs the production repository. I think strictly speaking it's more that I run the P2 project repository, Tom runs the OSM instance of P2 repository. For whatever it's worth. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-dev-Git-starter-tp6741077p6758654.html Sent from the Potlatch mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Git starter?
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: A few other things spring instantly to mind - an ill-advised redesign of the Undo system, a few problems with the Magic Roundabout system (e.g. having a 50% chance of nuking a way when trying to shorten it) and, more than anything else, lots of cases of commits generating compiler warnings. That these commits were to trunk kept necessitating other developers stepping up and fixing the build before they could continue with their own work. That was getting quite disruptive. I see - thanks for elaborating. I hadn't realised that those issues were so problematic. I guess one advantage of commit first, discuss later is that some of these issues (eg, the undo system) get forced into the limelight. There's clearly a balance, though, so I look forward to seeing how it works out this way in practice. I'd written that before the situation was clear. But there's also the distinction that it's not necessarily what OSMF is deploying, and I try to discourage anyone from getting worried about which repo to clone from. If you clone from mine, and then want to pull changes from someone else, it all comes out the same. Any notion of One True Repo just causes more confusion later on! I guess it's the difference between there is one true repo (and also other true repos) and there is no one true repo. Again, thanks for the explanation. Make sure you realise that there's nothing that makes it the definitive repository other than social factors. Unlike svn there's no central repository. It's only definitive in that Richard is the current maintainer, and the only difference he has over the rest of us is that TomH generally doesn't disagree with him (on p2 matters at least!). But you could also view the OSMF repo as definitive if you care about the version that's actually deployed on osm.org Ok, so Richard runs the debug repository, Tom runs the production repository. Anyway, I have now got a working build again. I think the gotcha that hit me last time was that you can't do this: 1) Clone from the OSM repository to your computer 2) Make changes 3) Publish to Github You have to do this: 1) Clone from OSM repository to your Github account 2) Clone from your Github account to your computer 3) Make changes 4) Publish to Github, and optionally send pull request (git push/git push origin) There's probably some way of recovering if you go down the wrong path (rebasing maybe), but it was beyond me. Anyway, I'm all good now. Steve ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Git starter?
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: If there's any gotchas let me know. Ok, since you asked: First you need to get a copy of the potlatch2 repository from somewhere. It doesn't really matter where it comes from... ... There's many different ways to share your changes with the rest of the world... These are not good words to reassure the newcomer that these instructions are simple will take him where he wants to go :) The github.com account is optional. When it comes to publishing your changes then yes, you do need to put them somewhere public, whether that be on github[1], another server, your own server, or where ever suits. When you have something published then just let one of us know where (e.g. by emailing the list) and we can start reviewing and incorporating your code. I find this bit of using git somewhat deflating. With SVN, I was able to commit my changes into the repository. Although the changes weren't immediately in the production release (fortunately), other developers would immediately see them next time they did an update. Perhaps it's irrational, but committing to the repository is a lot more satisfying than publishing to my own private repository and hoping that someone comes along and takes a look. Before: svn commit After: git commit Email list Andy, Richard, or someone (who are the code reviewers, anyway?) reviews changes, optionally accepts. If you need a hand with any of this just give me a shout, I'm more than happy to help. I guess I'll have to try the github fork/clone thing again and see what goes wrong again. Steve ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Git starter?
On 31/08/11 10:46, Steve Bennett wrote: I find this bit of using git somewhat deflating. With SVN, I was able to commit my changes into the repository. Although the changes weren't immediately in the production release (fortunately), other developers would immediately see them next time they did an update. Perhaps it's irrational, but committing to the repository is a lot more satisfying than publishing to my own private repository and hoping that someone comes along and takes a look. Before: svn commit After: git commit Email list Andy, Richard, or someone (who are the code reviewers, anyway?) reviews changes, optionally accepts. So basically you're complaining that your edits now have to be reviewed before they are merged and you can't ram them down people's throats anymore? There's no need to hope that somebody comes along and takes a look though - that's why you send pull requests, whether on github or by email. That's you saying hey, I've got something good here I'd like you to consider for Potlatch and then your change can be considered for inclusion. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Git starter?
On 31/08/2011 10:46, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Andy Allangravityst...@gmail.com wrote: If there's any gotchas let me know. Ok, since you asked: First you need to get a copy of the potlatch2 repository from somewhere. It doesn't really matter where it comes from... ... There's many different ways to share your changes with the rest of the world... These are not good words to reassure the newcomer that these instructions are simple will take him where he wants to go :) In case anyone hasn't seen it there's also Ed Loach's Getting a development copy of Potlatch 2 onto Windows 7 (64-bit) list on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:EdLoach . There are probably others around. Cheers, Andy ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Git starter?
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but this was causing lots of issues, as I'm sure you remember. Actually not - apart from my commiting changes in insufficient granularity. Happy to take your word for it, though. A few other things spring instantly to mind - an ill-advised redesign of the Undo system, a few problems with the Magic Roundabout system (e.g. having a 50% chance of nuking a way when trying to shorten it) and, more than anything else, lots of cases of commits generating compiler warnings. That these commits were to trunk kept necessitating other developers stepping up and fixing the build before they could continue with their own work. That was getting quite disruptive. You're probably aware of the long-running debates about pre-commit review versus post-commit review. Quick summary: pre-commit review reduces developer activity level but improves quality. I don't know much about the different approaches from a theoretical viewpoint, except that the way were were doing it before caused us lots of issues, and was making refactoring nigh on impossible. As Richard has said, his master branch is the canonical 'this is Potlatch2', so he's in charge Cool. This is the definitive statement lacking from the wiki page, which confused me. I'd written that before the situation was clear. But there's also the distinction that it's not necessarily what OSMF is deploying, and I try to discourage anyone from getting worried about which repo to clone from. If you clone from mine, and then want to pull changes from someone else, it all comes out the same. Any notion of One True Repo just causes more confusion later on! 1) There is still a definitive repository Make sure you realise that there's nothing that makes it the definitive repository other than social factors. Unlike svn there's no central repository. It's only definitive in that Richard is the current maintainer, and the only difference he has over the rest of us is that TomH generally doesn't disagree with him (on p2 matters at least!). But you could also view the OSMF repo as definitive if you care about the version that's actually deployed on osm.org There are circumstances (we've done it two or three times already that I can recall) where TomH pulls in bugfixes from my repo straight into the OSMF one and deploys that, when RichardF wasn't around to update his own repository. That's fine, git is totally decentralised like that so it works. Cheers, Andy ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
