Re: stable as subset of develop

[Jakub Narębski]

W dniu 27.08.2016 o 15:17, Brett Porter pisze:
> On 08/27/2016 03:55 AM, Jakub Narębski wrote:
>> W dniu 27.08.2016 o 04:29, Brett Porter pisze:
>>>
>>> In a small group, develop is the branch where all fixes/additions/... from 
>>> topic
>>> branches are merged rather dynamically. Thorough testing of commits
>>> may lag behind, but when we think one is a pretty good commit we want
>>> to identify it as (at least relatively) the latest stable. We could
>>> tag it, but we would like these stable commits to be a branch in the
>>> sense that each commit points back to a previous commit.
>>>
>>> Merging from a development branch commit to stable isn't quite what
>>> we want. It seems more like:
>>>
>>>checkout the new good development commit
>>>change HEAD to the head of the stable branch
>>>git add --all
>>>git commit
>>>(maybe tag the new commit with the hash of the chosen development commit)

Actually this is almost exactly equivalent (except for the commit
message template) to squash merge (you lose history, that is resulting
commit have only one parent), using 'ours' merge strategy (or rather
'theirs' - which does not exist in Git).

The visualization of history would look like this:


  1<---2<3<4<5<6<7 <--- unstable development branch
  |\  / /
  | \--a Oops - used tag in a generic sense when discussing git -- not helpful.
> Really - would put the hash of the development commit into the log message for
> the stable commit.

Well, this does not change my reasoning in any way.

>>
>> If you are really using topic branches, a better workflow would be
>> to make use of them.  That is, do the development of new features
>> on topic branches, test them in relative isolation, and when deemed
>> ready merge them into development branch, for more testing (including
>> integration testing).
>>
>> Then, those topic branches that are considered stable are merged
>> into stable branch ("trunk").  You can think of it as picking
>> features to have in stable.
> 
> Ok. There are 2 things at play The repository contains code for
> an embedded system with several subsystems (separate executables on
> separate processors). We will be trying to keep testing schemes up to
> date with respect to the progress on the code -- but (beyond
> unit/module tests), the scene will change over time; and, users may
> not be able to run much form their local copies. 

If there is problem with developers running tests (or at least running
them comprehensively, that is for all architectures / subsystems), why
not set up a continuous integration / continuous delivery server, that
would run all the tests after push?

> Second, only 2 of us
> have used git before (and, while trying to get up to speed - I am a
> ways from git guru-dom yet), while everyone else has been using
> visual sourcesafe for many years.

I have not used Visual SourceSafe myself (though I tried to use CVS
in times before Git), but I have heard horror stories about it...

As to mastering Git - I recommend "Pro Git" (free on-line book),
"Git for Teams" (though more about teams than about Git), or my
"Mastering Git" book.

For beginners, there is "Version Control By Example" (free online
version), or "Git: Version Control for Everyone".

> 
> I want others to merge their work into development sooner rather than
> later to minimize their and my problem of untangling conflicts (or -
> you rebased while you were sharing work with Jill and...). And,
> testing on their work may be limited before they push to our main
> repository and some integration can be done.

What the setup looks like?  Is there a central repository where everyone
publish their changes, or is there one person responsible for integrating
changes from each developer public repository?

> 
> I really want to create a linked list of the development branch
> commits that are of interest (their working sets - not the commit
> objects themselves), and using the commit object's pointer to its
> predecessor seems like it could just do the job. (it wouldn't be the
> place to go to for history / useful log entries)

Re: stable as subset of develop

[Brett Porter]

Thank you Jakub for your feedback.

On 08/27/2016 03:55 AM, Jakub Narębski wrote:

W dniu 27.08.2016 o 04:29, Brett Porter pisze:


In a small group, develop is the branch where all fixes/additions/... from topic
branches are merged rather dynamically. Thorough testing of commits
may lag behind, but when we think one is a pretty good commit we want
to identify it as (at least relatively) the latest stable. We could
tag it, but we would like these stable commits to be a branch in the
sense that each commit points back to a previous commit.

Merging from a development branch commit to stable isn't quite what
we want. It seems more like:

   checkout the new good development commit
   change HEAD to the head of the stable branch
   git add --all
   git commit
   (maybe tag the new commit with the hash of the chosen development commit)


Oops - used tag in a generic sense when discussing git -- not helpful.
Really - would put the hash of the development commit into the log message for
 the stable commit.



If you are really using topic branches, a better workflow would be
to make use of them.  That is, do the development of new features
on topic branches, test them in relative isolation, and when deemed
ready merge them into development branch, for more testing (including
integration testing).

Then, those topic branches that are considered stable are merged
into stable branch ("trunk").  You can think of it as picking
features to have in stable.


Ok. There are 2 things at play The repository contains code for an embedded
system with several subsystems (separate executables on separate processors). We
will be trying to keep testing schemes up to date with respect to the progress
on the code -- but (beyond unit/module tests), the scene will change over time;
and, users may not be able to run much form their local copies. Second, only 2
of us have used git before (and, while trying to get up to speed - I am a ways
from git guru-dom yet), while everyone else has been using visual sourcesafe for
many years.

I want others to merge their work into development sooner rather than later to
minimize their and my problem of untangling conflicts (or - you rebased while
you were sharing work with Jill and...). And, testing on their work may be 
limited
before they push to our main repository and some integration can be done.

I really want to create a linked list of the development branch commits that are
of interest (their working sets - not the commit objects themselves), and using 
the
commit object's pointer to its predecessor seems like it could just do the job.
(it wouldn't be the place to go to for history / useful log entries)



Take a look at Junio's blog posts about this topic.


Thanks for that. I will.




Will that work (one thing beyond my current understanding is if there
are index complications)? Other ideas?


That looks a bit like reimplementation of cherry-picking.


Maybe I've misunderstood cherry-picking, but I've thought it different from the
list view that I've been thinking could help us (with merges and multiple
commits).



Also, I think you would loose the ability to run git-bisect to find
bad commits.


Hmmm - I'm imagining a rather sparse stable, with perhaps time-consuming
integration testing.




This could help with applying successively more intense testing over
time and chase down where problems arose.


Reiterationg: if you are using topic branches, use topic-branch workflow.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: stable as subset of develop

[Jakub Narębski]

W dniu 27.08.2016 o 04:29, Brett Porter pisze:
> 
> In a small group, develop is the branch where all fixes/additions/... from 
> topic
> branches are merged rather dynamically. Thorough testing of commits
> may lag behind, but when we think one is a pretty good commit we want
> to identify it as (at least relatively) the latest stable. We could
> tag it, but we would like these stable commits to be a branch in the
> sense that each commit points back to a previous commit.
> 
> Merging from a development branch commit to stable isn't quite what
> we want. It seems more like:
> 
>   checkout the new good development commit
>   change HEAD to the head of the stable branch
>   git add --all
>   git commit
>   (maybe tag the new commit with the hash of the chosen development commit)

If you are really using topic branches, a better workflow would be
to make use of them.  That is, do the development of new features
on topic branches, test them in relative isolation, and when deemed
ready merge them into development branch, for more testing (including
integration testing).

Then, those topic branches that are considered stable are merged
into stable branch ("trunk").  You can think of it as picking
features to have in stable.

Take a look at Junio's blog posts about this topic.

> Will that work (one thing beyond my current understanding is if there
> are index complications)? Other ideas?

That looks a bit like reimplementation of cherry-picking.

Also, I think you would loose the ability to run git-bisect to find
bad commits.
 
> This could help with applying successively more intense testing over
> time and chase down where problems arose.

Reiterationg: if you are using topic branches, use topic-branch workflow.

-- 
Jakub Narębski

author of "Mastering Git"
https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/mastering-git
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

stable as subset of develop

[Brett Porter]

In a small group, develop is the branch where all fixes/additions/... from topic
branches are merged rather dynamically. Thorough testing of commits may lag 
behind,
but when we think one is a pretty good commit we want to identify it as (at 
least
relatively) the latest stable. We could tag it, but we would like these stable 
commits to
be a branch in the sense that each commit points back to a previous commit.

Merging from a development branch commit to stable isn't quite what we want. It 
seems
more like:

  checkout the new good development commit
  change HEAD to the head of the stable branch
  git add --all
  git commit
  (maybe tag the new commit with the hash of the chosen development commit)

Will that work (one thing beyond my current understanding is if there are index 
complications)?
Other ideas?

This could help with applying successively more intense testing over time and 
chase down
where problems arose.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html