| 1 |
Patrick Lauer: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 14 September 2014 15:42:15 hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Patrick Lauer: |
| 4 |
>>>> Are we going to disallow merge commits and ask devs to rebase local |
| 5 |
>>>> changes in order to keep the history "clean"? |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> Is that going to be sane with our commit frequency? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> You have to merge or rebase anyway in case of a push conflict, so the |
| 10 |
>> only difference is the method and the effect on the history. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Currently... CVS allows you to run repoman on an outdated tree and push |
| 13 |
>> broken ebuilds with repoman being happy. Git will not allow this. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> iow, git doesn't allow people to work on more than one item at a time? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Completely the opposite. You can work on 400 packages, accumulate the |
| 19 |
changes, commit them and push them in one blow instead of writing |
| 20 |
fragile scripts or Makefiles that do >400 pushes, fail at some point in |
| 21 |
the middle because of a conflict and then try to figure out what you |
| 22 |
already pushed and what not. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> That'd mean I need half a dozen checkouts just to emulate cvs, which somehow |
| 25 |
> doesn't make much sense to me ... |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
checkouts? You probably mean that you have to rebase your changes in |
| 29 |
case someone pushed before you. That makes perfect sense, because the |
| 30 |
ebuild you just wrote might be broken by now, because someone changed |
| 31 |
profiles/. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
We are talking about a one-liner in the shell that will work in the |
| 34 |
majority of the cases. If it doesn't work (as in: merge conflict), then |
| 35 |
that means there is something REALLY wrong and 2 people are working |
| 36 |
uncoordinated on the same file at a time. |
Archives