{"thread":{"id":"28999","subject":"Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","startedAt":"2011-11-22T14:04:06Z","lastAt":"2011-11-23T21:30:50Z","messageCount":8,"participants":["Daniele Segato","Junio C Hamano","Paolo Ciarrocchi","Frans Klaver"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"179831","messageId":"1321970646.3289.19.camel@mastroc3.mobc3.local","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Daniele Segato","fromEmail":"daniele.bilug@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-11-22T14:04:06Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-22T14:04:06Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"daniele.bilug@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 15:26 -0500, Jeff King wrote:\nOn Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:22:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> > Jeff King writes:\n> > \n> > > So one solution is to block fetching of remote branches called\nHEAD\n> > > (which I would be OK with). But another is...\n> > > ... Obviously there's a lot more to it than just tweaking the\ndefault fetch\n> > > refspecs. The ref lookup rules need to be changed to take this\ninto\n> > > account. There was some discussion about this over the summer\n(under the\n> > > subject of possible \"1.8.0\" changes), but I don't think any work\nhas\n> > > been done.\n> > \n> > I would say discussing and ironing out the kinks of the design\ncounts as\n> > work, but I agree nobody was seriously interested in laying out a\nsensible\n> > transition plan and discussion died out before anything concrete\nhappened.\n> \n> Yeah, I should have said \"...has been done since then\".\n> \n> > Regardless of the layout chanage, which probably is a 2.X topic, I\nthink a\n> > good first step would be to start forbidding anything that ends with\n_?HEAD\n> > as a branch or tag name, on top of Michael's \"enforce the refname\nrules more\n> > vigorously when a ref is created\" series.\n> \n> Agreed. Changing the layout is a long-term fix, and I think\ndisallowing\n> HEAD is a reasonable stop-gap measure.\n\nHi,\n\nI pretty much agree with you that this is the right solution in the\nlong-term.\n\nBut how are you going to remember this?\nIs there an issue tracking?\nDo you use some other kind of ticketing system?\n\nSince the *official* repo is now hosted on github, why don't making use\nof the github ticketing system? [1]\n\nYou probably already discussed this tons of times but I can't figure out\nhow you are gonna remember to do something if you don't have a roadmap\nand a ticketing system that allow you to trace the bugs and features.\n\nDo you have to dig into the mailing list archive to look for the\nprevious discussion?\n\nThis is actually just out of curiosity, sorry if this hurt someones\nfeeling.\n\n\nThanks and regards,\nDaniele Segato\n\n\n[1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on \"Git source repository\"\nis https://github.com/gitster/git\n"},{"id":"179837","messageId":"1321977372.3289.38.camel@mastroc3.mobc3.local","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":"CAH5451==iXuB=QPW7bQvahB-jMnKC2axJYnW2OfFq=UNO9U6mg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Daniele Segato","fromEmail":"daniele.bilug@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-11-22T15:56:12Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-22T15:56:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"daniele.bilug@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 01:29 +1100, Andrew Ardill wrote:\n> > Since the *official* repo is now hosted on github, why don't making\n> use\n> > of the github ticketing system? [1]\n> \n> From memory, only members of an organisation/owner of an account can\n> manage tickets on github. This would be difficult to organise for\n> git. \n\nWell... Actually I think the mailing list works pretty well.\n\nAnd the ticketing system would only be useful to use as a shared TODO\nlist.\n\nLet me explain my idea with an example:\n\nAn issue is discussed, a bug is acknowledged and a proposed solution is\ndiscussed, this all happen in the mailing list, like it always has.\n\nSomeone in the \"git management\" (the one that usually choose how git\nshould evolve) open a ticket, copy the relevant part of the mailing list\n(or link to the discussion in the archive) and (optionally) place the\nbug / feature / enhancement into a roadmap / milestone\n\nIf the issue is not assigned anyone can see it and come by in the email\nwith a patch proposal.\n\nThis is just an idea, I can't propose myself to such a job, I wouldn't\nbe able to provide the appropriate support to it.\n\n> > You probably already discussed this tons of times but I can't figure\n> out\n> > how you are gonna remember to do something if you don't have a\n> roadmap\n> > and a ticketing system that allow you to trace the bugs and\n> features.\n\n\n> We have previously discussed this, and it boils down to \"if someone\n> can ensure it is maintained, let's do it\". So far no-one has put their\n> hand up and there is a fear of the system becoming clogged with many\n> issues that are not maintained. \n\nI see, I can understand why, it's hard to just find the time to read all\nthe messages in this mailing list.\n\nRegards,\nDaniele Segato\n"},{"id":"179846","messageId":"7vd3ckdjx9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":"1321970646.3289.19.camel@mastroc3.mobc3.local","subject":"Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2011-11-22T19:41:22Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-22T19:41:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Daniele Segato writes:\n\n> [1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on \"Git source repository\"\n> is https://github.com/gitster/git\n\nThat one is as official as anybody's \"git clone\" from many of the\ndistribution points.\n\nI do not see any reason to name an official repository, but if I were\npressed, that copy at github is not the one I would nominate.\n"},{"id":"179847","messageId":"7v8vn8djo1.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":"1321977372.3289.38.camel@mastroc3.mobc3.local","subject":"Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2011-11-22T19:46:54Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-22T19:46:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Daniele Segato writes:\n\n> Let me explain my idea with an example:\n>\n> An issue is discussed, a bug is acknowledged and a proposed solution is\n> discussed, this all happen in the mailing list, like it always has.\n>\n> Someone in the \"git management\" (the one that usually choose how git\n> should evolve) open a ticket, copy the relevant part of the mailing list\n> (or link to the discussion in the archive) and (optionally) place the\n> bug / feature / enhancement into a roadmap / milestone\n\nThis step I wouldn't buy, if you count me as part of \"management\".\n\nBut I suspect that curation of issues, prodding parties involved and\nclosing inactive/stale ones can be done by volunteer project secretaries\nwithout requiring an authority to choose how git should evolve.\n\ncf. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/110117/focus=110129\n"},{"id":"179886","messageId":"CAHVLzc=SPD+AHhAPP_=mEVv5cJvn0oiJ_k-KBEkG=Qhcw2UxHA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":"7vd3ckdjx9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Paolo Ciarrocchi","fromEmail":"paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-11-23T13:44:30Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-23T13:44:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Daniele Segato writes:\n>\n>> [1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on \"Git source repository\"\n>> is https://github.com/gitster/git\n>\n> That one is as official as anybody's \"git clone\" from many of the\n> distribution points.\n>\n> I do not see any reason to name an official repository, but if I were\n> pressed, that copy at github is not the one I would nominate.\n\nBut that's the only repo mentioned in the git-scm home page.\n\nRegards,\n Paolo\n"},{"id":"179888","messageId":"CAH6sp9OXzHj=r707zyRQxaJmndHm5_DcWWMLn_1zyLdEZ_TSbA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":"CAHVLzc=SPD+AHhAPP_=mEVv5cJvn0oiJ_k-KBEkG=Qhcw2UxHA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Frans Klaver","fromEmail":"fransklaver@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-11-23T15:47:00Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-23T15:47:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"fransklaver@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1876483?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Paolo Ciarrocchi\n wrote:\n> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> Daniele Segato writes:\n>>\n>>> [1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on \"Git source repository\"\n>>> is https://github.com/gitster/git\n>>\n>> That one is as official as anybody's \"git clone\" from many of the\n>> distribution points.\n>>\n>> I do not see any reason to name an official repository, but if I were\n>> pressed, that copy at github is not the one I would nominate.\n>\n> But that's the only repo mentioned in the git-scm home page.\n\nThe note from the maintainer[1] mentions\n\n\tgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/\n\tgit://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git\n\thttps://github.com/git/git\n\thttps://code.google.com/p/git-core/\n\nI would assume one of those would be a nomination for 'official' repo.\n\nMaybe something for Scott C. to address?\n\nCheers,\nFrans\n\n[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184174\n"},{"id":"179891","messageId":"7v4nxudb73.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":"CAH6sp9OXzHj=r707zyRQxaJmndHm5_DcWWMLn_1zyLdEZ_TSbA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2011-11-23T17:02:08Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-23T17:02:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Frans Klaver writes:\n\n>> But that's the only repo mentioned in the git-scm home page.\n>\n> The note from the maintainer[1] mentions\n>\n> \tgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/\n> \tgit://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git\n> \thttps://github.com/git/git\n> \thttps://code.google.com/p/git-core/\n>\n> I would assume one of those would be a nomination for 'official' repo.\n>\n> Maybe something for Scott C. to address?\n\nAs long as the link says \"Git source repository\" without \"the official\",\nScott is doing the right thing. It is just one of the copies that I push\ninto, so it may be considered more official than a fork of my history by a\nrandom unknown person.\n\nAs Git is distributed, we do not need a single \"official\" repository. If\nyou really want to name one, my private working repository at my home\nmachine would be what is closest to one, as patches and pull requests are\nprocessed there and then the result is pushed out to the above four and a\nfew others. But that \"official\" one is not exposed to the outside world ;-)\n"},{"id":"179914","messageId":"op.v5e4podr0aolir@keputer.lokaal","threadId":"28999","inReplyTo":"7v4nxudb73.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD","fromName":"Frans Klaver","fromEmail":"fransklaver@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-11-23T21:30:50Z","receivedAt":"2011-11-23T21:30:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"fransklaver@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1876483?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:02:08 +0100, Junio C Hamano \nwrote:\n\n> Frans Klaver writes:\n>\n>> The note from the maintainer[1] mentions\n>>\n>> \tgit://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/\n>> \tgit://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git\n>> \thttps://github.com/git/git\n>> \thttps://code.google.com/p/git-core/\n>>\n>> I would assume one of those would be a nomination for 'official' repo.\n>>\n>> Maybe something for Scott C. to address?\n>\n> As long as the link says \"Git source repository\" without \"the official\",\n> Scott is doing the right thing. It is just one of the copies that I push\n> into, so it may be considered more official than a fork of my history by \n> a\n> random unknown person.\n>\n> As Git is distributed, we do not need a single \"official\" repository. If\n> you really want to name one, my private working repository at my home\n> machine would be what is closest to one, as patches and pull requests are\n> processed there and then the result is pushed out to the above four and a\n> few others. But that \"official\" one is not exposed to the outside world \n> ;-)\n\nSince official is a rather unreal term here, let's just drop it. There are \na few repositories that the maintainer currently pushes to, and those are \nthe most reliable ones to use if you want the latest git vanilla. Other \nthan that, there's going to be no difference from the next git.git clone.\n\nIt might remove some confusion if these repos would be reflected on \nwebsites focusing on git as they are in the maintainers notes, but that's \nprobably up to the respective webmasters then.\n\nFrans\n"}]}