| 1 |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:13:42PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> - You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree. |
| 3 |
> - You have already pushed it to your github, signed |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
If I have a github tree, that would probably be because I didn't have |
| 6 |
push access to the official tree, so signing the commit probably |
| 7 |
isn'tgoing to matter; I would expect that a gentoo dev who has push |
| 8 |
access to the tree would sign the commit when it is put into the gentoo |
| 9 |
tree. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> - It needs to be merged/rebased so that it applies on the Gentoo tree. |
| 12 |
> - If you force it to be a rebase so it applies on the tip, then you may |
| 13 |
> have changed the history of your github tree, and broken any further |
| 14 |
> forks. |
| 15 |
> - If you permit a merge instead, nobody gets broken. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you do this: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
git rebase master mybranch |
| 20 |
git checkout master |
| 21 |
git merge mybranch <-- this is a fast-forward merge |
| 22 |
git pull --rebase |
| 23 |
git push |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I think that covers this concern doesn't it? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > > 2. |
| 28 |
> > > Git-SVN breakage. Why does this matter you're wondering? |
| 29 |
> > > We need the newer Git for the commit signing, but it comes with a |
| 30 |
> > > price, the git-svn binary has some major failures with SVN 1.7. |
| 31 |
> > > Git since 1.7.8 has been broken this way. |
| 32 |
> > To clarify - these won't be issues for gentoo per se, but there is a |
| 33 |
> > sense that we can't stabilize the latest git because it will break it |
| 34 |
> > for people using git-svn on non-gentoo work? |
| 35 |
> As the Git maintainer, I will not keyword it for anybody until I know |
| 36 |
> it's not going to lose/corrupt data, regardless of what they are using |
| 37 |
> it for. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Why not keyword it and use package.use.mask for the git-svn flag? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
William |
Archives