{"thread":{"id":"21873","subject":"Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options","startedAt":"2009-12-06T00:53:03Z","lastAt":"2009-12-07T00:52:24Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Sverre Rabbelier","Miklos Vajna","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"129305","messageId":"fabb9a1e0912051653s77ba25e1g9ff1e21219cd06c9@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21873","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-12-06T00:53:03Z","receivedAt":"2009-12-06T00:53:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nI'm planning to start finishing up git-remote-hg this week, and for\nthat I need both sr/vcs-helper (in next) and sr/gfi-options (in pu).\nHow can I best go about working on these? I _think_ what I want is to\nmerge sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options, into either master or next\n(with a three-way merge), but I'm not sure? Also, when I try to rebase\nsr/vcs-helper onto master I get conflicts yet again, since these were\nalready resolved in next, what is the best way for me to proceed in\nsuch a way that it is convenient for you (Junio) and the list, if\npossible, without having to untangle those merge conflicts.\n\nThanks!\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"129306","messageId":"20091206010548.GB31763@genesis.frugalware.org","threadId":"21873","inReplyTo":"fabb9a1e0912051653s77ba25e1g9ff1e21219cd06c9@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options","fromName":"Miklos Vajna","fromEmail":"vmiklos@frugalware.org","sentAt":"2009-12-06T01:05:48Z","receivedAt":"2009-12-06T01:05:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"vmiklos@frugalware.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/401c1cbbb3a5d13e650c691a2c71d6fd0b80df1a01bc74d9f1972675dd58f2bd?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 01:53:03AM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:\n> (with a three-way merge), but I'm not sure? Also, when I try to rebase\n> sr/vcs-helper onto master I get conflicts yet again, since these were\n\nThat part is fairly easy, just don't forget to enable rerere. :)\n"},{"id":"129307","messageId":"7vr5r8oov1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21873","inReplyTo":"fabb9a1e0912051653s77ba25e1g9ff1e21219cd06c9@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-12-06T01:47:14Z","receivedAt":"2009-12-06T01:47:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Sverre Rabbelier writes:\n\n> I'm planning to start finishing up git-remote-hg this week, and for\n> that I need both sr/vcs-helper (in next) and sr/gfi-options (in pu).\n> How can I best go about working on these? I _think_ what I want is to\n> merge sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options, into either master or next\n> (with a three-way merge), but I'm not sure? Also, when I try to rebase\n> sr/vcs-helper onto master I get conflicts yet again, since these were\n> already resolved in next, what is the best way for me to proceed in\n> such a way that it is convenient for you (Junio) and the list, if\n> possible, without having to untangle those merge conflicts.\n\nSome observations.\n\n - sr/vcs-helper seems to be near completion; I'd expect it to be among\n the first batch of topics to go to 'master' after 1.6.6 final (some\n fixes may happen between now and 1.6.6 final to make the series a bit\n longer, though).\n\n - sr/gfi-options started moving again and there could be a couple more\n iterations before it would hit 'next'.\n\nUntil sr/gfi-options becomes more solid, one way we can manage\nsr/remote-hg is (thinking aloud):\n\n - Fork sr/remote-hg from today's sr/vcs-helper; \n\n - Merge today's 'master' to sr/remote-hg (optional);\n\n - Whenever any updates to vcs-helper topic appears, apply them to\n sr/vcs-helper, and merge the result to sr/remote-hg;\n\n - Create an unstable sr/pu-remote-hg branch that:\n\n - is reset to the tip of sr/remote-hg at the beginning of the day;\n - merges the day's sr/gfi-options on top;\n - re-applies patches to implement Hg interoperation on top of the\n result.\n\nWhen sr/gfi-options becomes solid, we can merge it to sr/remote-hg itself,\nget rid of sr/pu-remote-hg \"patch queue\", and move the Hg interoperation\npatches we helpd in sr/pu-remote-hg to sr/remote-hg branch. We will merge\nearly parts of sr/remote-hg (at least up to the merge with sr/gfi-options,\nand perhaps early parts of individual Hg interoperation patches as well)\nto 'next', and remaining parts on the branch to 'pu' (and they can be\nreplaced).\n"},{"id":"129323","messageId":"fabb9a1e0912060223h148a67b0q589b8461dae6330e@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21873","inReplyTo":"7vr5r8oov1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-12-06T10:23:17Z","receivedAt":"2009-12-06T10:23:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nOn Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 02:47, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>  - sr/vcs-helper seems to be near completion; I'd expect it to be among\n>   the first batch of topics to go to 'master' after 1.6.6 final (some\n>   fixes may happen between now and 1.6.6 final to make the series a bit\n>   longer, though).\n\n*nod*.\n\n>  - sr/gfi-options started moving again and there could be a couple more\n>   iterations before it would hit 'next'.\n\nYup, I'm hoping for a review by Shawn and the vcs list.\n\n> Until sr/gfi-options becomes more solid, one way we can manage\n> sr/remote-hg is (thinking aloud):\n>\n>  - Fork sr/remote-hg from today's sr/vcs-helper;\n\nThat makes sense, this way I don't have to re-resolve those merge\nconflicts either.\n\n>  - Merge today's 'master' to sr/remote-hg (optional);\n\nI'm not sure why this is though? (no objections against it, I just\ndon't understand the motivation)\n\n>  - Whenever any updates to vcs-helper topic appears, apply them to\n>   sr/vcs-helper, and merge the result to sr/remote-hg;\n\n*nod*\n\n>  - Create an unstable sr/pu-remote-hg branch that:\n>\n>   - is reset to the tip of sr/remote-hg at the beginning of the day;\n>   - merges the day's sr/gfi-options on top;\n>   - re-applies patches to implement Hg interoperation on top of the\n>     result.\n\nOk, that does make sense, how would I send out patches for review from\nthis unstable branch though? (since others would not have the required\nmerges etc) I reckon it would be necessary to publish sr/pu-remote-hg\nsomewhere?\n\n> When sr/gfi-options becomes solid, we can merge it to sr/remote-hg itself,\n> get rid of sr/pu-remote-hg \"patch queue\", and move the Hg interoperation\n> patches we helpd in sr/pu-remote-hg to sr/remote-hg branch.  We will merge\n> early parts of sr/remote-hg (at least up to the merge with sr/gfi-options,\n> and perhaps early parts of individual Hg interoperation patches as well)\n> to 'next', and remaining parts on the branch to 'pu' (and they can be\n> replaced).\n\nLuckily the remote-hg patch is just that, a single patch. I've already\nput all the other work that's needed into sr/vcs-helper and\nsr/gfi-options.\n\nThank you for the detailed explanation :).\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"129360","messageId":"7vfx7nekuf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"21873","inReplyTo":"fabb9a1e0912060223h148a67b0q589b8461dae6330e@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2009-12-06T23:36:24Z","receivedAt":"2009-12-06T23:36:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Sverre Rabbelier writes:\n\n>>  - Merge today's 'master' to sr/remote-hg (optional);\n>\n> I'm not sure why this is though? (no objections against it, I just\n> don't understand the motivation)\n\nIt would make sense if you use 1.6.6 features in your new series (as the\nforkpoint of sr/vcs-helper is beginning to look a tad stale), but\notherwise unnecessary; that is the reason why I said it is \"(optional)\"\nand it is up to what is in the remote-hg patch.\n\n>>  - Create an unstable sr/pu-remote-hg branch that:\n>>\n>>   - is reset to the tip of sr/remote-hg at the beginning of the day;\n>>   - merges the day's sr/gfi-options on top;\n>>   - re-applies patches to implement Hg interoperation on top of the\n>>     result.\n>\n> Ok, that does make sense, how would I send out patches for review from\n> this unstable branch though? (since others would not have the required\n> merges etc) I reckon it would be necessary to publish sr/pu-remote-hg\n> somewhere?\n\nI was thinking about carrying it myself (perhaps with help from you in\nconflict resolution as necessary) when I wrote it, but if you want me to\npull from your repository somewhere e.g. repo.or.cz, that would also be\nfine.\n"},{"id":"129369","messageId":"fabb9a1e0912061652s3133a8c8s8b43bbc666c6016f@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"21873","inReplyTo":"7vfx7nekuf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Continued work on sr/vcs-helper and sr/gfi-options","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2009-12-07T00:52:24Z","receivedAt":"2009-12-07T00:52:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nOn Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 00:36, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> It would make sense if you use 1.6.6 features in your new series (as the\n> forkpoint of sr/vcs-helper is beginning to look a tad stale), but\n> otherwise unnecessary; that is the reason why I said it is \"(optional)\"\n> and it is up to what is in the remote-hg patch.\n\nGotcha, I don't think I use any 1.6.6 features though, so I don't\nthink that will be necessary.\n\n> I was thinking about carrying it myself (perhaps with help from you in\n> conflict resolution as necessary) when I wrote it\n\nThat would be great! If you are you offering to create the\nsr/pu-remote-hg branch and merge it to pu so that I can send patches\nbased on that, please do. If not, what do I do instead? :).\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"}]}