www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Rosenvold <kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Current use of GitHub
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:20:43 GMT
Being in Europe, the QoS of the european mirror does not
seen good enough for proper git-svn operation. What's even worse,
it seems like recent versions of git (1.7.1 in my case)
can get permanently lost over git-svn when the rebase fails,
so I've started using this workflow:

I use a "full" git workflow as if svn does not exist,
and I push to my personal github clone at will. I do not
make any attempts at keeping my local clone in synch
with svn, but I pull from asf git. I rebase branches in my
own git repo and on github "at will".


Instead I keep a temporary clone of svn
(git svn clone -rHEAD https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/surefire/trunk)
I then just add my own github repo as a remote to the temporary
clone, cherry pick from there and dcommit back. I delete this
clone whenever I feel like it.


I'm talking about https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/network
here. Note that I intentionally sent the "network" link instead of the 
front page
link. If you scroll along the network graph you'll see that
I keep a large number of branches representing open
issues I have done some amount of work on. At least one
of my non-committer collaborators knows to go
searching for test-cases I might have made for
some open issue there; exposing partially
completed work is one of the great features
github adds.


I have picked a couple of one-line fixes straight
off the network graph view, but generally
it goes by jira+patch.

 From a general provenance/mailing list perspective I
think the discussion at
https://github.com/mrenouf/maven-surefire/commit/44b9a7a1f1b03fde343b133d451899c1e2430b3d
is quite interesting. Using tools like github invariably
leads to discussions about code happening in/near the code.
Since the user in question can rebase/remove
this commit, I think there might be a case for
aggregating these things into a more persistent record somewhere.



> Also, apart from Github, how else are Git only users providing patches to
> projects, which patch programs are in use, and of those which
> are most used by those projects/committers that need to apply them.
It seems to me git users use git diff.

I generally use git-apply for *all* patches I receive,
because it seems to be much more tolerant than "patch".
At the least sign of trouble I just create a new git branch
at around the date the patch was submitted in history
and rebase it to head. Works like a charm and no more
stale patches.


Kristian


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