Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:46:03AM -0500, Ian Monroe wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 15:17, Oswald Buddenhagen o...@kde.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:09:23PM -0500, Ian Monroe wrote: (making sure local branches track the correct remote branches, nothing to be done here. really? you can't change what happens when you type 'git push' ? you don't want to (unless you enjoy creating a mess). if you previously were on the wrong branch, the checkout command i gave will make a new local branch which automatically has the right tracking branch. if you already have unpushed commits based on the wrong branch, you can cherry-pick them into or rebase them onto the correct branch once you have created it.
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 18:13, Alex Merry k...@randomguy3.me.uk wrote: On 21/03/11 20:17, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 21 March 2011, Ian Monroe wrote: Ben did add this block to his hook. Hooray. :) I'm thinking I should just go ahead and rename KDE/4.6 to 4.6 etc. Wasn't the conclusion more like going with the longer name, i.e. KDE/4.6 ? That's what I understood from the earlier discussion... I get why people like the prefix in theory, since I mean that's why I left it there. It looks nice. But in practice its obviously just been confusing. Even now that creating 4.6 is blocked, that just means its blocked and we won't notice when people struggle. Ian
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On 22/03/2011, Ian Monroe i...@monroe.nu wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 18:13, Alex Merry k...@randomguy3.me.uk wrote: On 21/03/11 20:17, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 21 March 2011, Ian Monroe wrote: Ben did add this block to his hook. Hooray. :) I'm thinking I should just go ahead and rename KDE/4.6 to 4.6 etc. Wasn't the conclusion more like going with the longer name, i.e. KDE/4.6 ? That's what I understood from the earlier discussion... I get why people like the prefix in theory, since I mean that's why I left it there. It looks nice. From what I understand the problem, it's not a like/dislike question but a real problem if an application has its own version numbers and reaches e.g. version 4.6. But in practice its obviously just been confusing. Even now that creating 4.6 is blocked, that just means its blocked and we won't notice when people struggle. Can the hook not give a message pointing to some Wiki page that explains the issue? Regards
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
Em domingo, 20 de março de 2011, às 13:38:40, Albert Astals Cid escreveu: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? BTW, the only reason why they are there is because I created them like that when I did the initial import rules 2.5 years ago. At the time, Qt had a branch called qt/4.7 and it seemed to us like a good idea. I did the same for KDE, hence KDE/4.6 today. Qt has since moved to using a branch called 4.7 only. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
Em terça-feira, 22 de março de 2011, às 16:41:14, Thiago Macieira escreveu: Em domingo, 20 de março de 2011, às 13:38:40, Albert Astals Cid escreveu: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? BTW, the only reason why they are there is because I created them like that when I did the initial import rules 2.5 years ago. At the time, Qt had a branch called qt/4.7 and it seemed to us like a good idea. I did the same for KDE, hence KDE/4.6 today. Qt has since moved to using a branch called 4.7 only. Of course I meant that we had a branch called qt/4.5 back then. If we had had 4.7 2.5 years ago, life would be so different today... -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Monday 21 Mar 2011 14:19:09 Ian Monroe wrote: Ben did add this block to his hook. Hooray. :) Yay, thanks Ben! Mental note to buy Ben yet another beer at Akademy. I'm thinking I should just go ahead and rename KDE/4.6 to 4.6 etc. Do we know what the consequences are? Does this damage the history at all? Are the Release Team and distro's ready to change their scripts? Do we need to advertise this in advance? Did we settle the other points raised in this thread about the naming scheme? Come to think of it, perhaps it's the Release Team who should have final say on the branch naming, they may have requirements that we haven't thought of? John.
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
- Original Message - Come to think of it, perhaps it's the Release Team who should have final say on the branch naming, they may have requirements that we haven't thought of? I think I can say on behalf of the release-team, that we don't care much as long as it is consistent over all git repo's and ideally done before 4.6.2 has to be tagged (31st) iow, don't delay the renaming, just do it IMHO. Though if it needs a reclone for everyone we need to pick a date and *communicate* it. Let's say this weekend? Best, -- Tom Albers KDE Sysadmin
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +, Tom Albers wrote: Though if it needs a reclone for everyone we need to pick a date and *communicate* it. Let's say this weekend? reclone? hello? git fetch git checkout 4.6
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
- Original Message - On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +, Tom Albers wrote: Though if it needs a reclone for everyone we need to pick a date and *communicate* it. Let's say this weekend? reclone? hello? I think I've stated my question in a way that makes clear that I did not know the answer. I did not know if the renaming of branches would make the existing shasums invalid. Hence my formulation. Git might be known by you inside out, but please note that is not the case for everyone. I personally think it's inappropriate to make fun of someone less knowledgeable. If you want to be short, just leave out your whole line 'reclone? hello?' and keep the instructions. It brings the point across too and I feel less dumb. Best, -- Tom Albers KDE Sysadmin
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 13:41, Oswald Buddenhagen o...@kde.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:57:03PM +, Tom Albers wrote: Though if it needs a reclone for everyone we need to pick a date and *communicate* it. Let's say this weekend? reclone? hello? git fetch git checkout 4.6 Yea, ossi is correct even if snarky. :) Its not a big deal, but the rename will be a bit confusing for people. I'm going to play around with a test repo to figure out what commands will make it pain-free (making sure local branches track the correct remote branches, clean out deleted remote branches etc). And then email kcd+plasma+co and we can plan on making the switch this weekend. Ian
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Monday 21 March 2011, Ian Monroe wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:17, Ian Monroe i...@monroe.nu wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:09, Andreas Hartmetz ahartm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Albert Maybe we can go through with renaming the branches to n.m (without KDE/) prefix? Some repositories have the prefix, some don't, I think it doesn't make sense to have the prefix, and it was decided (by tossing a coin...) that the prefix should be removed. This would just cause more chaos until we block the creation of whatever the non-favored naming scheme is. Ben did add this block to his hook. Hooray. :) I'm thinking I should just go ahead and rename KDE/4.6 to 4.6 etc. Wasn't the conclusion more like going with the longer name, i.e. KDE/4.6 ? Alex
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
- Original Message - On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:06:51PM +, Tom Albers wrote: Git might be known by you inside out, but please note that is not the case for everyone. it's one thing not to know everything inside out and another not to understand what a ref actually is ... I'm a team player, that means I trust on others to educate me, correct me and that also means I don't have to learn git. It seems the 'KDE Community' feeling I once appreciated being part of is declining by the day. -- Tom Albers KDE Sysadmin
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:24:24PM +, Tom Albers wrote: I'm a team player, that means I trust on others to educate me, correct me you may have noticed that all the job ads looking for team players also emphasize independence and self-motivation. i.e., the ability to complete day-to-day tasks on your own. let me try: google git ref = second hit (the first being obviously too generic) git help reftab-complete # bingo - perfect starting point git help | grep ref # well ... could be better ... that also means I don't have to learn git. hearing that from a sysadmin makes me *really* scared. but then, kde always had the culture of fixing mistakes instead of avoiding them (as in, stuff that gets committed). we have about 500 backups (clones) of the repositories and nobody except me seems to care whether the scm history is useful anyway. so whatever - let's have fun! had your daily pull --rebase screwup already? no? way to go ...
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
- Original Message - On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 08:24:24PM +, Tom Albers wrote: I'm a team player, that means I trust on others to educate me, correct me you may have noticed that all the job ads looking for team players also emphasize independence and self-motivation. i.e., the ability to complete day-to-day tasks on your own. My day-to-day task was to be helpful in this thread. And I could complete that just fine without knowing what a ref is. The only part I was not sure of I clearly indicated that someone else needs to look at it. that also means I don't have to learn git. hearing that from a sysadmin makes me *really* scared. The sysadmin team has knowledge enough about git and I'm happy to leave the things I don't know to them. but then, kde always had the culture of fixing mistakes instead of avoiding them (as in, stuff that gets committed). Yes, this is different than a commercial company indeed. we have about 500 backups (clones) of the repositories and nobody except me seems to care whether the scm history is useful anyway. From close by I've seen several git repo's being declined by fellow sysadmins and people from kde-git, because the history was incomplete or stuff was missing. I've seen several discussions about what would be the 'right' history and a lot of people cared. I think you are mistaken here. so whatever - let's have fun! had your daily pull --rebase screwup already? no? way to go ... Let me be clear: I'm very careful about the stuff I do with git and I understood the discussion about the --rebase problem just fine, after this list made clear I had to watch out for that. I actually did research and talked to people to understand it, because the discussion was a bit confusing to me. Best, -- Tom Albers KDE Sysadmin
4.6 branches created in git again
Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Albert
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:09, Andreas Hartmetz ahartm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Albert Maybe we can go through with renaming the branches to n.m (without KDE/) prefix? Some repositories have the prefix, some don't, I think it doesn't make sense to have the prefix, and it was decided (by tossing a coin...) that the prefix should be removed. This would just cause more chaos until we block the creation of whatever the non-favored naming scheme is. Ian
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sunday 20 March 2011 15:17:11 Ian Monroe wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:09, Andreas Hartmetz ahartm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Albert Maybe we can go through with renaming the branches to n.m (without KDE/) prefix? Some repositories have the prefix, some don't, I think it doesn't make sense to have the prefix, and it was decided (by tossing a coin...) that the prefix should be removed. This would just cause more chaos until we block the creation of whatever the non-favored naming scheme is. I'd suggest doing exactly that no matter if the branch names are changed or not.
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
Why do we let people create branches on the main git server anyway?
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:57, Ian Monroe wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:45, John Tapsell wrote: Why do we let people create branches on the main git server anyway? Well for feature branches its fine and kind of the point of git. There's no reason to let non-admins create version branches though. Extragear? Parker
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sunday 20 March 2011, Parker Coates wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:09, Andreas Hartmetz wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Maybe we can go through with renaming the branches to n.m (without KDE/) prefix? I think keeping the prefix is the superior option. For kdelibs, kderuntime, kdeworkspace, etc. it really doesn't make any difference, but for something like, say, Konsole the difference is important. If one sees a branch named 4.6 in the Konsole repository, one is likely to assume that it represents Konsole 4.6, when in fact it represents Konsole 2.6 which is part of KDE SC 4.6. Keeping the KDE/ prefix helps clarify this. I agree. In doubt, be explicit. Alex
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sunday 20 March 2011 15:59:55 Parker Coates wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:09, Andreas Hartmetz wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Maybe we can go through with renaming the branches to n.m (without KDE/) prefix? I think keeping the prefix is the superior option. For kdelibs, kderuntime, kdeworkspace, etc. it really doesn't make any difference, but for something like, say, Konsole the difference is important. If one sees a branch named 4.6 in the Konsole repository, one is likely to assume that it represents Konsole 4.6, when in fact it represents Konsole 2.6 which is part of KDE SC 4.6. Keeping the KDE/ prefix helps clarify this. Right, I didn't think of that... AFAIK we have some modules where the branch is called 4.6. They aren't that many, and can we fix them then?
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On 20 March 2011 15:01, Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org wrote: A Diumenge, 20 de març de 2011, John Tapsell va escriure: Why do we let people create branches on the main git server anyway? How are you supposed to work on a feature-branch otherwise? By having it in your own git repository. This is how Qt does it. Anyone can clone the Qt repository on the server and create branches in their own clone. For example, here is mine: http://qt.gitorious.org/~johnflux- and other people can (and do) work on it. John
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sunday 20 Mar 2011 15:02:49 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011, Parker Coates wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:09, Andreas Hartmetz wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Maybe we can go through with renaming the branches to n.m (without KDE/) prefix? I think keeping the prefix is the superior option. For kdelibs, kderuntime, kdeworkspace, etc. it really doesn't make any difference, but for something like, say, Konsole the difference is important. If one sees a branch named 4.6 in the Konsole repository, one is likely to assume that it represents Konsole 4.6, when in fact it represents Konsole 2.6 which is part of KDE SC 4.6. Keeping the KDE/ prefix helps clarify this. I agree. In doubt, be explicit. Alex Exactly. Another argument now is sheer volume, I think more people will have checkouts of kdelibs and kdebase with the prefix than will have checkouts of the repos without the prefix, so it will now be less disruptive to keep KDE/. A month ago it would have been different. John.
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On 03/20/2011 04:17 PM, John Tapsell wrote: By having it in your own git repository. This is how Qt does it. Anyone can clone the Qt repository on the server and create branches in their own clone. For example, here is mine: http://qt.gitorious.org/~johnflux- and other people can (and do) work on it. In case someone accidentally misreads that as a suggestion to use Gitorious: Note that git.kde.org supports server-side per- sonal clones as well. (Plus personal repositories, which Gito- rious doesn't.) John -- Best regards, Eike Hein
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sunday 20 March 2011, Parker Coates wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:57, Ian Monroe wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 09:45, John Tapsell wrote: Why do we let people create branches on the main git server anyway? Well for feature branches its fine and kind of the point of git. There's no reason to let non-admins create version branches though. Extragear? I'm pretty sure that everybody understands that this only applies to SC repositories. So, don't worry. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: 4.6 branches created in git again
On Sunday, 20 de March de 2011 15:09:26 Andreas Hartmetz wrote: On Sunday 20 March 2011 14:38:40 Albert Astals Cid wrote: Can you please be careful and do not create incorrectly 4.6 branches in places where the branch is called KDE/4.6 (e.g kdelibs and kde-runtime) Ian can you kill them? Albert Maybe we can go through with renaming the branches to n.m (without KDE/) prefix? Some repositories have the prefix, some don't, I think it doesn't make sense to have the prefix, and it was decided (by tossing a coin...) that the prefix should be removed. Suggestion: create a symbolic-ref from one to the other. Then the two branches are always one: push to one will update the other. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
