Re: Reference for git.git release process

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Mar 26, 2009, 17:03 UTC
Message-ID: <20090326170326.GE23521@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v3ad1ufcb.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

jUNio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:30:31PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> I do not answer "generally" part, but in git.git, I do not publish heads
> >> of individual topic branches.  I could, but simply I don't, because that
> >> has been the way I've operated so far, and I am too lazy to change my
> >> configuration.
> >
> > I don't think it is a big problem in practice.
> 
> Both times Shawn took over the maintainership from me in October for the
> past few years (and I will ask him to this year, too, although I do not
> know if he is willing to take it again yet), it would have made his life
> (and possibly everybody who had his topic in flight) much easier if they
> were public.  Last year I sent him for-each-ref output offline before I
> took off to make it a bit easier on him (my disappearance two years ago
> was unscheduled and I couldn't do that).

So yes, I'd be happy to fill in while you are offline again.

But back to Jeff's point, the bigger issue when you dropped off all of a sudden wasn't extracting the refs from the `pu` branch (that was fairly easy, just scan through the merge commits, copy and paste the branch name, copy and paste the 2nd parent), it was figuring out what the state of each branch was, and what your final thoughts on that branch had been before you left.

The newer "what's in" tools in your Meta project make this easier, along with having the messages archived. The first year I had to go pull the what's in email from the list archives, and just scan through the code and form my own opinion in a few cases.

-- 
Shawn.