Re: best git practices, was Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary continued
- From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
- Date
- Oct 25, 2007, 14:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4720AF05.3050308@op5.se>
- In-Reply-To
- <20071025132401.GA22103@thunk.org>
Theodore Tso wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 12:33:09PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: >> Because it's convenient, ofcourse. Don't you have 'maint', 'next' >> and 'master' in your clone of git.git? I'm guessing at least 99% of >> the people on this list have those branches lying around in their >> clones, even if they only ever use 'next' and/or 'master'. > > I find it just as easy to say: "git checkout origin/maint" or "git > checkout origin/next" when I want to examine some other branch. > > If I want to make a change against maint, then I follow up "git > checkout origin/maint" with a "git checkout -b <topic-name>". Part of
Except that <topic-name> in this case will always be maint, since only small bugfixes go on that branch. We tried using different-named branches earlier, but the "git push <local-branch>" behaviour was much too common, and we ended up with far too many randomly named branches on the mothership repository.
> > You're using a diferent workflow, and with users who aren't interested > in learning the fine points of git. But main issue is that git isn't > optimized for what you want to do.
Correct. I'm working on optimizing it right now though :)
> So I can suggest a couple of > different approaches. One is to simply do things the 'hg' way. > Explicitly set up different repos for the different branches. It's > more inefficient, but it does work.
That makes diffing harder to do, and for those few long-living topics that get pushed to mothership, there's no logical way for the user to get only that branch. With the *:refs/remotes/foo/* config thing, this works seemlessly today.
Show 40 quoted lines
> > Another would be to set up a wrapper script for "git-clone" that > creates a separate local working directory for each branch. So for > example, it might do something like this: > > #!/bin/sh > # Usage: get-repo <URL> [dir] > URL=$1 > dir=$2 > branches=`git-ls-remote --heads $URL | sed -e 's;.*/;;'` > if [ "$dir"x = "x" ]; then dir=`basename $URL`; fi > git clone $URL .temp-repo > mkdir $dir > cd $dir > for i in $branches; do > mkdir $i > cd $i > git init > git remote add -t $i origin $URL > echo ref: refs/heads/$i > .git/HEAD > git fetch ../../.temp-repo refs/remotes/origin/$i:refs/remotes/origin/$i > # do it a second time to get the tags (bug in fetch?) > git fetch ../../.temp-repo refs/remotes/origin/$i:refs/remotes/origin/$i > git merge origin/$i > git config remote.origin.push $i:$i > cd .. > done > cd .. > rm -rf .temp-repo > > For bonus points, this script could be made smarter so that each of > the branches shared a common git object database, and some error > checking would be nice, but hopefully this gets the basic idea across. > > This way, the "basic git users" get a separate working directory for > each branch, where "git pull" updates that particular branch, and "git > push" updates changes to the remote branch. > > Does this do what you want? >
Not really, I'm afraid. Apart from missing out on the auto-download of new repos you get with "fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*", it seems inelegant.
Show 8 quoted lines
> - Ted > > P.S. Note by the way that if you are having everyone own access to > push into a single central repository, having a "next" branch probably > doesn't make seense. You're probably way better off just simply > having "master" (which would be your devel branch), and "maint" for > bug fixes. >
We have maint = maintenance code. some repos have several maint-branches master = integration-tested code that will end up in next release testing = unit-tested features, ready for integration testing
We can't really do without them, but perhaps I can do what Dscho suggested in another email and force everyone to delete their locally-modifiable branches once they're done making changes to them. It'll end up being more commands to run for a single fix, but at least it's not error-prone.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231