Re: [git-users] Re: Non-Git records
On 19/7/10 19:24, "Konstantin Khomoutov" wrote: > On Jul 19, 8:29 pm, Roddie Grant wrote: >> My recent brush with a forgotten stash has led me to consider again an issue >> which I've never really got a complete answer to - how much information (if >> any) about a project should be kept outside Git. >> >> IOW do developers keep a note (on paper, spreadsheet, database?) of how >> branches inter-relate, their purpose and so on. > I, presonally, do not (yet) use any specific techniques for this, but > several possibilities of storing some meta-information with Git comes > to mind. > > First, is the simple usage of "annotated tags" -- tags which contain > messages attached to them. For instance, having created your > "cola_moss" branch and finalized the changes made on it, you could tag > its tip with an annotated tag and write in the annotation why the > branch was created (what feature(s) does it implement/what bug(s) does > it fix) and so on. When the customer returns back to you with the > results of testing the branch, you could just do `git show that-tag` > and get the idea about what to do next. > You could employ the fact Git stores tags in subdirectories if they > contain slashes, so you could sensibly name such tags, like this, for > instance: > $ git tag -a pending/cola_moss > When you have dealt with the branch, you can also remove any tags > pertaining to it. > > As a variation, in such a tag you could just record a URL of a ticket > in your project's tracker or of a wiki page describing the situation > etc. > > Second, it's possible to "graft" a new empty tree onto an existing Git > repository, and by "empty tree" I mean "a tree which shares no history > with the rest of the repository" which differentiates it from "normal" > trees which are created by the means of "forking" existing trees. Such > a tree could be used to store any metadata in any format you like. In > the simplest form this could be just a text file with certain notes. > Creating such a tree looks a bit like voodoo but is in fact nothing > special: > $ git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/meta > $ rm * > $ rm .git/index > $ touch notes.txt > $ git add notes.txt > $ git commit -m "Create new `meta' branch" > $ git branch > master > * meta > > Then, when you need to update any bit meta info about your repository, > you check out that "meta branch", update it, then switch back. In any > aspect, it behaves exactly as any other branch. > [1] contains more background info on such branches. > > 1. http://madduck.net/blog/2007.07.11:creating-a-git-branch-without-ancestry/ Konstantin - thanks for this too. Tags don't get much coverage in Git literature, and I'd rather overlooked them. Roddie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
[git-users] Re: Non-Git records
Thanks for asking this question. Thank you for the info about annotated tags. I tend to put this info in the commit messages, but was feeling at a loss for how to retrieve it easily, with out having to filter through the whole log. I also tend to make my branch names fairly descriptive. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
[git-users] Re: Non-Git records
On Jul 19, 8:29 pm, Roddie Grant wrote: > My recent brush with a forgotten stash has led me to consider again an issue > which I've never really got a complete answer to - how much information (if > any) about a project should be kept outside Git. > > IOW do developers keep a note (on paper, spreadsheet, database?) of how > branches inter-relate, their purpose and so on. > > An example: For a website I'm currently developing, the customer has asked > me to make what is really a simple cosmetic change. I've done so on a branch > called "cola_moss". But it could be several days or even weeks before the > customer approves the change and the cola_moss branch can be merged with > master. In the meantime, other development work continues on other branches. > By the time I get back to the cola_moss branch I'll not remember what else > was happening at the time it was created. > > I've found some very useful stuff on line about workflow, but it's all about > how to use Git, not how to record the process. > > So do developers generally just use the information obtainable from Git > itself or do they keep external notes too; and if so, what do they look > like? I, presonally, do not (yet) use any specific techniques for this, but several possibilities of storing some meta-information with Git comes to mind. First, is the simple usage of "annotated tags" -- tags which contain messages attached to them. For instance, having created your "cola_moss" branch and finalized the changes made on it, you could tag its tip with an annotated tag and write in the annotation why the branch was created (what feature(s) does it implement/what bug(s) does it fix) and so on. When the customer returns back to you with the results of testing the branch, you could just do `git show that-tag` and get the idea about what to do next. You could employ the fact Git stores tags in subdirectories if they contain slashes, so you could sensibly name such tags, like this, for instance: $ git tag -a pending/cola_moss When you have dealt with the branch, you can also remove any tags pertaining to it. As a variation, in such a tag you could just record a URL of a ticket in your project's tracker or of a wiki page describing the situation etc. Second, it's possible to "graft" a new empty tree onto an existing Git repository, and by "empty tree" I mean "a tree which shares no history with the rest of the repository" which differentiates it from "normal" trees which are created by the means of "forking" existing trees. Such a tree could be used to store any metadata in any format you like. In the simplest form this could be just a text file with certain notes. Creating such a tree looks a bit like voodoo but is in fact nothing special: $ git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/meta $ rm * $ rm .git/index $ touch notes.txt $ git add notes.txt $ git commit -m "Create new `meta' branch" $ git branch master * meta Then, when you need to update any bit meta info about your repository, you check out that "meta branch", update it, then switch back. In any aspect, it behaves exactly as any other branch. [1] contains more background info on such branches. 1. http://madduck.net/blog/2007.07.11:creating-a-git-branch-without-ancestry/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to git-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
