Re: StGIT: stgitformatversion vs. stgit.formatversion

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 4, 2007, 22:12 UTC
Message-ID: <b0943d9e0706041512g2b063676x6c6c954c9fd84aeb@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070603121718.GA6507@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

On 03/06/07, Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com> wrote:

> On 2007-06-02 21:16:41 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
>
> > What about using branch.*.stgit.formatversion to store the version,
> > to be consistent with other stgit-specific per-branch settings ?

I agree as well.

> Good idea. But we should probably fall back to stgitformatversion (or
> better, upgrade from it) to be nice to those running Catalin's master.

It could, indeed, fall back to stgitformatversion and upgrade from it. Anyway, I'm not sure there are that many running the master branch but this would be needed for us as well.

Show 6 quoted lines

> It happens a bit too often that we find problems with patches only
> after Catalin has published them on "master". (At least that seems to
> be the case with patches coming from me!) Maybe a "pu" branch
> (maintained either by Catalin or someone else) would be a good way to
> smoke them out before they're written in stone and distributed to lots
> of people.

Well, I consider "master" to be a development branch anyway. It would be useful to get an idea of how many are using this branch (people not following the GIT list are probably using the stable releases anyway). A "pu" branch would make sense for more experimental stuff, like the DAG patches.

> If the stgitformatversion patch had been on such a branch, we could
> just have edited it and not have to worry about upgrading old configs
> (aside from posting a mail on how to upgrade manually).

But now I have plenty of branches in my Linux tree already, so I wouldn't do it manually. We already have checks for the repository version, adding this would probably only be 2-3 lines.

-- 
Catalin