Re: Need help migrating workflow from svn to git.

From: Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2017, 18:24 UTC
Message-ID: <0c0867d8-73d7-3577-be26-2a9a7691d58b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171215124739.GC18542@raven.inka.de>

Hi Josef,

Thank you for your patient answers. From what you said here and in that other reply[1], it looks like you know what you`re doing, you`re aware of circumstances, and you still prefer doing it that way.

So, here it goes... :)

On 15/12/2017 13:47, Josef Wolf wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> 
> > I`m thinking of a workflow involving (scripted) creation of a 
> > temporary branch at fetched remote branch position, and using 
> > something like `git checkout --merge <temp_branch>` to merge your 
> > local modifications to latest changes fetched from remote (ending
> > up with conflicts inside working tree, if any),
> 
> But this would require local modifications to be committed?

 
Nope :) Here`s a script you can test to see if it works for you, 
simulating `svn update` (at least how I perceived it).

Feel free to adapt as you feel like it (I used local "master" branch and remote "origin/master", for example), or to speak up if any additional info is needed.

    git checkout -b temp &&               #1
    git fetch &&                          #2
    git branch -f master origin/master && #3
    git checkout -m master &&             #4
    git add -u &&                         #5
    git reset &&                          #6
    git branch -d temp                    #7

Explanation:
 1. Create temporary branch where we are, switching to it, so we can 
    update "master" without local modifications
 2. Fetch latest updates
 3. Update "master" to fetched "origin/master"
 4. Switch to updated "master", merging local modifications
 5. Mark any pending merge conflicts as resolved by staging them...
 6. ... and unstage them right away
 7. Delete temporary branch

Step (4) is what merges your local modifications with remote updates (leaving conflicts, if any), where steps (5) and (6) are not needed for a single run, but in case you don`t resolve conflicts before next cron job executes this script again, step (1) will now fail without them because of (still) unresolved merge conflicts.

So, as you seem to be pretty at ease with your flow, you might prefer leaving those two steps (5, 6) in.

This does seem ugly and hacky, but if it works for you, I don`t judge :) Please note that there might be better ways to accomplish this, I repeat, I`m not an expert, but hopefully this could do the job.

Also, if I missed something, I hope someone will correct me.

Regards, Buga

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20171215130645.GD18542@raven.inka.de/