cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Cordova CLI merge, new branch, INFRA ticket
Date Fri, 24 May 2013 14:05:49 GMT
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