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 15:38:02 GMT
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