Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Kofler
Simo Sorce wrote: > No, if the branches are identical then by all means keep them aligned. > But once they diverge, do not try anymore, at that point merges will > just mess up the history with no gain whatsoever. But if the branches didn't actually diverge, but got different history for some rea

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package?branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Kofler
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > I'm a little leary of rebase... Everytime I've tried to use it in any > project I've managed to get my checkout in a state where I had to make > a fresh clone, do a manual diff between my old working tree and new one, > and then delete the old clone. I know that other peop

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Kevin Kofler
Adam Williamson wrote: > Take the current state of gnome-power-manager. Master is at: > > commit dfd0f074a7d41d355da28180eae1bda5dc2bba66 > Author: Richard Hughes > Date: Mon Sep 26 16:58:28 2011 +0100 > > New upstream version. > > f16 is at: > > commit b0b31219d2cfdffa815659a8aad78509b65c41

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package?branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:49 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:37:38PM +, phantomjinx wrote: > > > > > > I would recommend rebasing branches against master up until they are > > pushed, if > > required to be shared. Doing so retains a linear history on the branch and

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package?branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:37:38PM +, phantomjinx wrote: > > > I would recommend rebasing branches against master up until they are pushed, > if > required to be shared. Doing so retains a linear history on the branch and can > mean the branch commits can end up being fast forwarded onto mas

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread phantomjinx
Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:38:16 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > -- Although others have pointed out how to use git log and git > cherry-pick to achieve that... I find it faster to use git merge and just > remove the empty conflicts markers if I encounter this situatio

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 12:38 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:59:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Mic

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:38:16 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > -- Although others have pointed out how to use git log and git > cherry-pick to achieve that... I find it faster to use git merge and just > remove the empty conflicts markers if I encounter this situation. Using git > log and th

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > My problem came in the case where someone has already *not* done this - > they've updated f16 separately from, and more than, master, and I wanted > to get them back in sync. If you want to keep merging as long as possible, and you are in

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:59:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > > > I'm sorry but the reason is that peop

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > > I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows. > > > > I guess it depends on what is the m

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "JK" == Jesse Keating writes: JK> I don't believe you can delete a branch remotely, I think releng has JK> to do it on the server. Yes, you could still ask releng to delete a JK> branch, then you could re-create it with the same name and have the JK> same net effect, however we don't let d

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Jesse Keating
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Josh Stone wrote: > On 11/10/2011 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: >>> >>> Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for >>> co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some >>> branc

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Josh Stone
On 11/10/2011 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: >> >> Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for >> co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some >> branch. >> >> See http://man.he.net/man1/git-rebase > > Ou

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Jesse Keating
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > > Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for > co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some branch. > > See http://man.he.net/man1/git-rebase Our repo setup does not allow non-fastforward changes, so ther

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Garrett Holmstrom
On 2011-11-09 18:48, Adam Williamson wrote: > thanks both of you; I hadn't really thought about the consequences of > merging vs. cherry-picking, I think I'd just cargo-culted from somewhere > the idea of using git merge instead of manually re-doing changes without > considering cherry-picking inst

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows. > > I guess it depends on what is the maintainer preferred workflow. > > I personally hate git merge, espe

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:46 +, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 10/11/11 13:38, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > > >> Yes, in case of such a fast-forward then rebasing gives the same result > >> as merging. > > > > No, you are dead wrong here. Merging doe

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Nathaniel McCallum
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > builds have got behind their F16 builds. > > I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no > readily apparently reason in this case. http://

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows. I guess it depends on what is the maintainer preferred workflow. I personally hate git merge, especially for stuff so simple as fedora trees. It gives no advantages I can

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Richard Shaw
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > builds have got behind their F16 builds. > > I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no > readily apparently reason in this case. I ran i

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Tom Hughes
On 10/11/11 13:38, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > >> Yes, in case of such a fast-forward then rebasing gives the same result >> as merging. > > No, you are dead wrong here. Merging does *join* the history of 2 > branches in git, and the top commit has

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:43 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: > > > > Isn't it better to use 'git rebas

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Simo Sorce
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, S

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Michael J Gruber
Adam Williamson venit, vidit, dixit 10.11.2011 02:46: > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > builds have got behind their F16 builds. > > I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no > readily apparently reason in this case. > > Take

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Neil Horman
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:46:57PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > builds have got behind their F16 builds. > > I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no > readily apparently reason in this case

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Mathieu Bridon
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:43 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: > > > Isn't it better to use 'git rebase'? E.g. on master use 'git rebase > > > f16'. As I understand it

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Vratislav Podzimek
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, S

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Fabian Deutsch
Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek: > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-10 Thread Vratislav Podzimek
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > I'm currently going through and bumping several packa

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-09 Thread Matt Domsch
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 07:46:57PM -0600, Adam Williamson wrote: > It's rather infuriating to have to go in and 'fix' a bunch of > 'conflicts' which are not conflicts at all, but just the changes you > wanted to merge with a bunch of silly and around them. I use this: fedpkg switch-bran

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > > > builds have got behind their F16 builds. >

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-09 Thread Mathieu Bridon
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > > builds have got behind their F16 builds. > > > > I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'co

Re: Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-09 Thread Simo Sorce
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide > builds have got behind their F16 builds. > > I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no > readily apparently reason in this case. I ha

Why does git merge have so much trouble with Fedora package branches?

2011-11-09 Thread Adam Williamson
I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide builds have got behind their F16 builds. I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no readily apparently reason in this case. Take the current state of gnome-power-manager. Master is at: commit dfd