On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Torgny Nyblom <k...@nyblom.org> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:21:17 +0100 > Mark Kretschmann <kretschm...@kde.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Ian Monroe <i...@monroe.nu> wrote: >> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:55, Mark Kretschmann <kretschm...@kde.org> >> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Torgny Nyblom <k...@nyblom.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:39:52 +0100 >> >>> Mark Kretschmann <kretschm...@kde.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hey folks, >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a small request regarding git.kde.org, it resulted from a >> >>>> discussion with Chani: >> >>>> >> >>>> Problem is, we cannot currently force-push on branches, nor can we >> >>>> delete them. I can understand that this is done for safety reasons, >> >>>> but it does not fit everyone's work flow. E.g. I tend to rebase a lot, >> >>>> and that does not work without force pushing. >> >>>> >> >>>> So, Chani and I came up with this idea: We could allow force-pushing >> >>>> and deleting on branches (shares branches need communication anyway), >> >>>> but we could disallow it for master. This way, not much harm can be >> >>>> done, but it allows for a more flexible work flow. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Thoughts? >> >>> >> >>> It would have to be a per branch setting as for instance KDE 4.7 will >> >>> probably be in a lot of git branches and quite some harm can be done >> >>> with force push/branch deletion there. >> >> >> >> My view is this: If you share a branch with others, you *need* to >> >> communicate anyway. I you just rebase it, of course that will do harm. >> >> >> >> So you don't rebase on branches that you want for cooperation, simple >> >> as that. I think that a "per branch" setting would cause a lot of >> >> work... >> > >> > Rebasing a 4.7 branch over master would be a horrible thing to have >> > happen. So it really can't be allowed for version branches. >> >> That I can agree with. However, version branches are not of direct >> importance to every developer. Ideally, some Git Ninja should watch >> over them, and maybe do the merges, or revert things. >> >> Personally I work on feature branches, and without force-pushing, the >> branches are entirely useless to me. You could argue that I should >> simply use a public clone and do there whatever I want. But then, what >> are the branches good for? De facto, they are currently being used for >> doing features, and not only release management. > > Yes and all of this would be covered with "per branch" settings. > How this is implemented is another thing, it could be "branches that match > regexp" and rules foo and other rules bar.
You have a point there. How about this: Per default, force-pushing is allowed in branches. But some important branches (like version branches) become protected. Is that a workable compromise? -- Mark Kretschmann Amarok Developer, Software Engineer at KO GmbH Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe http://amarok.kde.org - http://fsfe.org - http://kogmbh.com _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list Kde-scm-interest@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
