cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Cordova CLI merge, new branch, INFRA ticket
Date Wed, 29 May 2013 16:05:34 GMT
For the record, I don't mind a reclone, so long as there are no negative
repercussions, ie, (1) its not called master2 and (2) there is no way for
anyone to shoot us in the foot if they forget to re-clone properly and
start doing merges/pushes/whatever.

So, if (2) fails loudly thats my preference.  Otherwise, I don't mind (4)
but others might, and I hate (3) more than (1) :)

-Michal


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Braden Shepherdson <braden@chromium.org>wrote:

> This would be an example of "continuing to pay the price for not being
> willing to re-clone 1, 3, 6, 12 months ago." We can avoid all of that
> nonsense with three lines.
>
> Braden
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Can we go with (1) and still keep master2 around (perhaps rename it to
> > something sensible) so that we can still get full history but with one
> > level of indirection:
> > - The mega commit could have a commit message such as "THIS WAS A HACKY
> > MERGE, FOR REAL HISTORY LOOK IN THE OLD_FUTURE BRANCH"
> > - When you bit blame and see that as the commit responsible, you know you
> > have to git blame again in the other branch
> >
> > -Michal
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@google.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > SInce 2 and 3 both require re-cloning the repository, I'd much rather
> go
> > > with 2, and rename the branches appropriately.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ya the rename easiest
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Braden Shepherdson <
> > braden@chromium.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'll keep this thread up to date with INFRA's responses.
> > > > >
> > > > > I asked INFRA about options and their implications. These are the
> > four
> > > > > options I described, after I was informed that our original request
> > > would
> > > > > actually require everyone to re-clone the repo.
> > > > >
> > > > >  1. Check out master, delete all the files, copy in all the files
> > from
> > > > > master2, check them all in. This keep the branching the same, and
> no
> > > one
> > > > > would need to re-clone. But it also makes the history nearly
> useless
> > > > before
> > > > > that point. I dislike this option, but it's there.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Rename master to old_master or similar, and rename master2 to
> > > master.
> > > > > Since everyone is re-cloning anyway, this is possible. Keeps the
> name
> > > > > consistent. This might be nasty if someone tries to merge between
> an
> > > old
> > > > > master and the new master. Unless git can notice that things are
> > wrong
> > > > and
> > > > > they should re-clone.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. My original request to move HEAD. Exposes the master2 name and
> > > > requires
> > > > > everyone to use it. Still requires a re-clone.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Abandon the repository and recreate it under a new name, pushing
> > > only
> > > > > master2 as the new master. Requires a re-clone and changing the
> name.
> > > > > Probably not, but it's an option.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do people think? I'm most partial to 2, since it preserves the
> > > > master
> > > > > name and it's hard to avoid recloning.
> > > > >
> > > > > Braden
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> What is the resolution on this?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My opinion: History is in the past, move on.
> > > > >> I think it's okay if it is history is messy, or even if has a
few
> > > > duplicate
> > > > >> commits.  Tangles and all.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> @purplecabbage
> > > > >> risingj.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Braden Shepherdson <
> > > > braden@chromium.org
> > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I think so, but only if we're prepared to keep the tangled
> history
> > > and
> > > > >> > duplicate about 30 commits. Several mistakes were made with
the
> > > > branching
> > > > >> > and rebasing of things on master, and there's a lot of
> duplication
> > > and
> > > > >> > confusion in the history.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > When you get in this morning, I can show you the whiteboard
> > diagram
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > long version above, and then you can look at the histories
of
> > master
> > > > and
> > > > >> > master2 on GitX. I think you'll agree it's worth moving
forward
> > with
> > > > >> > master2.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Braden
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> > > agrieve@chromium.org
> > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Could we merge master2 into master with:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > git merge --strategy-option=theirs master2
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Braden Shepherdson
<
> > > > >> braden@chromium.org
> > > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > tl;dr version: cordova-cli now has a master2 branch
that
> > should
> > > be
> > > > >> > > treated
> > > > >> > > > as master going forward. DO NOT use master or
future
> anymore.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Short version:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > - I tried to merge future and master.
> > > > >> > > > - I couldn't because the history is a train wreck.
The
> > morbidly
> > > > >> curious
> > > > >> > > > should see [2].
> > > > >> > > > - Ian and I dug through the history, and played
CSI until we
> > > > figured
> > > > >> > out
> > > > >> > > > what had happened, and found a sensible way to
reconstruct a
> > > sane
> > > > >> > master
> > > > >> > > > branch.
> > > > >> > > > - This branch merged fairly neatly with future.
> > > > >> > > > - It is now committed as the new branch master2.
> > > > >> > > > - The original master branch is deprecated.
> > > > >> > > > - I have filed an INFRA ticket[1] to get them
to point HEAD
> at
> > > > >> master2,
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > delete the old master branch.
> > > > >> > > > - Use master2 from now on. DO NOT touch the old
master or
> > future
> > > > >> > branches
> > > > >> > > > anymore.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I'll keep the list updated on the state of the
INFRA ticket.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Braden
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6302
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > [2] Long version:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > A long time ago, I forked cli's master to create
future. I
> > > > committed
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > half-dozen changes or so. Sometime later, a 2.7.x
branch was
> > > > forked
> > > > >> > /from
> > > > >> > > > future/. Several changes were made here. Later
it was merged
> > > back
> > > > in,
> > > > >> > /to
> > > > >> > > > master/. The same changes were later rebased onto
master and
> > > > >> committed
> > > > >> > > > again, duplicating them. Then this branch was
merged with
> > master
> > > > >> again,
> > > > >> > > > creating a /third/ copy of the changes originally
from this
> > > 2.7.x
> > > > >> > branch.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Meanwhile, some of the changes from future were
reverted by
> > hand
> > > > (as
> > > > >> > > > opposed to with git revert) in master.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Finally some new changes were made to future and
master. It
> > > looks,
> > > > >> > > > according to git, like there are only these changes
on the
> > > future
> > > > >> > branch,
> > > > >> > > > since the earlier ones were merged by accident
some time
> ago.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > When I came along and tried to merge master and
future in
> > either
> > > > >> > > direction,
> > > > >> > > > or rebase in either direction, those older future
changes
> > stayed
> > > > >> > deleted,
> > > > >> > > > because according to git they were made on the
same branch.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Moral of the story: Don't take a branch off master
(like
> > > future),
> > > > >> fork
> > > > >> > > it,
> > > > >> > > > commit to it, and then merge it back to master.
That's what
> > > > started
> > > > >> > most
> > > > >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > the insanity, because now future is partially
merged into
> > master
> > > > even
> > > > >> > > > though it's not being treated that way.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I need a drink.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message