On 9/21/19 2:18 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 03:29:27PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
I suppose we also need to decide what form we want to use for the
equivalent of gcc.gnu.org/rNNNNN. I figure it needs to be some prefix
followed by a "commit-ish" (hash, tag, etc.). Perhaps "g:" as the
prefix, so
gcc.gnu.org/g:HEAD
gcc.gnu.org/g:gcc-9-branch
gcc.gnu.org/g:3cf0d8938a953e
Hrm, but we should probably not allow everything here, some things can
be expensive to compute (HEAD~123456 for example), and we don't want to
expose the reflog on the server (if there even is one), etc. OTOH
allowing pretty much everything here is a quite neat idea.
What do we use for gitweb thing? That might have a solution for this
already. Currently we seem to use plain gitweb, maybe cgit or similar
would be nicer? It looks more modern, anyway :-P
Segher
If I recall correctly using git branches based off tags is the preferred
way. And to
Seger's point after a server there is none after pulling down in git.
Everything is
off line unless he means something else. The biggest thing as I pointed
out at
Cauldron in terms of issues are:
a) How much history do you need in terms of how far back for git bisect
or rebasing
and
b. Branching after a major release or for other non trunk branches. How
to allow
other branches or how to set them up using tags e.t.c in git for this.
Mostly the problem with git is getting in right for these two based on
the project
requirments,
Nick
