Source Mage code commit list

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 02:42:10PM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
>> Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 03:40:30PM -0500, Eric Sandall wrote:
>>>> GIT changes to devel grimoire by Eric Sandall <sandalle AT sourcemage.org>:
>>>>
>>>>  libs/aqbanking/BUILD   |   15 ++++++---------
>>>>  libs/aqbanking/DEPENDS |    8 ++++----
>>>>  libs/aqbanking/HISTORY |   10 ++++++++++
>>>>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> New commits:
>>>> commit 84aa8430647bdc1ceed56a6849c69bd335559b86
>>>> Author: Eric Sandall <sandalle AT sourcemage.org>
>>>> Commit: Eric Sandall <sandalle AT sourcemage.org>
>>>>
>>>>     Merging changes from test (master) to devel
>>> Why? In my working with git I came to the conclusion that a standing
>>> devel branch is probably not a good idea, instead we should create new
>>> branches for WIP stuff if that's possible. Does anyone know whether it's
>>> possible with git to create a new branch in a remote repository? If not,
>>> a standing devel branch is what we'd have to deal with, but there's
>>> various drawbacks to that compared to 'real' feature branches.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Because devel has changes that weren't integrated to test in P4 and I
>> made changes in test via git and now need to sync test -> devel so I can
>> then sync devel -> test (if I'm understanding correctly).
>>
>> I am now trying to figure out, since devel is now in sync, how to pull
>> everything in devel (multiple changes) into test, but cherry-pick is
>> only for a single change. I think I need to use `git merge` and list
>> multiple remotes and use the octopus strategy, but I have not tried that
>> yet.
>  
> That's why we use test as main branch in git, and why I don't want a
> standing devel branch.
> Overall I'd say just pull whatever changes you want into devel and then
> deal with any conflicts when cherry-picking them to test. Or sync the
> whole libs into devel and go from there.

The devel changes were done in P4 and not integrated into test. The git
repo just grabbed what was in P4 at the time.

I thought of that after I synced from test -> devel and then became
stuck on the 'proper' method (I could cherry-pick the two commits) to
bring all of devel back into test.

I thought git would want an integration path between the two, which is
why I synced test -> devel before trying to pull devel back to test, but
perhaps I'm too used to Perforce?

- -sandalle

- --
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us                  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  SysAdmin @ Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/  #196285  |  http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEXRs1HXt9dKjv3WERAszdAKCbtXd1agcJPnGY8PhoOFXB2fxFVACgm+1b
+D8M5rQ87fV9JC7yZjzPOSc=
=oXqC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----