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 02:55:02PM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
>> -----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?
>  
> git prefers to have a common ancestor, not sure how important that is.
> Anyway, you have that in our case as devel is a branch of test in our
> git repo. I haven't actually done any such integrations, but at least
> cherry-picking won't really care much about changes in-between as long
> as the cherry-pick applies.
> Using a permantent devel branch as we have it right now with git,
> merging from test to devel before doing changes in devel is probably a
> good idea.
> 

So the current 'proper' method is to now cherry-pick each commit (just
two: the original change and my sync from test) individually (since
cherry-pick only works on one at a time) back to test?

- -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

iD8DBQFEXSXBHXt9dKjv3WERAmRRAKCYiK2z9Of+r+O18N2CsZ/AwGu49QCdHyun
aKqm+wAbJVnV8t7zy8p5rP0=
=TlPq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----