threads / discuss / 28999

Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

Subject: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

## tl;dr

8 messages between Nov 22, 2011 and Nov 23, 2011.

replies: 7people: 4as markdown or json

Daniele Segato· Nov 22, 2011, 14:04 UTC · lore

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 15:26 -0500, Jeff King wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:22:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> 
> > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> > 
> > > So one solution is to block fetching of remote branches called

HEAD

> > > (which I would be OK with). But another is...
> > > ... Obviously there's a lot more to it than just tweaking the

default fetch

> > > refspecs. The ref lookup rules need to be changed to take this

into

> > > account. There was some discussion about this over the summer

(under the

> > > subject of possible "1.8.0" changes), but I don't think any work

has

> > > been done.
> > 
> > I would say discussing and ironing out the kinks of the design

counts as

> > work, but I agree nobody was seriously interested in laying out a

sensible

> > transition plan and discussion died out before anything concrete

happened.

> 
> Yeah, I should have said "...has been done since then".
> 
> > Regardless of the layout chanage, which probably is a 2.X topic, I

think a

> > good first step would be to start forbidding anything that ends with

_?HEAD

> > as a branch or tag name, on top of Michael's "enforce the refname

rules more

> > vigorously when a ref is created" series.
> 
> Agreed. Changing the layout is a long-term fix, and I think

disallowing

> HEAD is a reasonable stop-gap measure.

Hi,

I pretty much agree with you that this is the right solution in the long-term.

But how are you going to remember this? Is there an issue tracking? Do you use some other kind of ticketing system?

Since the *official* repo is now hosted on github, why don't making use of the github ticketing system? [1]

You probably already discussed this tons of times but I can't figure out how you are gonna remember to do something if you don't have a roadmap and a ticketing system that allow you to trace the bugs and features.

Do you have to dig into the mailing list archive to look for the previous discussion?

This is actually just out of curiosity, sorry if this hurt someones feeling.

Thanks and regards, Daniele Segato

[1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on "Git source repository" is https://github.com/gitster/git

Junio C Hamano· Nov 22, 2011, 19:41 UTC · re: Daniele Segato · lore

Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

Daniele Segato <daniele.bilug@gmail.com> writes:

> [1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on "Git source repository"
> is https://github.com/gitster/git

That one is as official as anybody's "git clone" from many of the distribution points.

I do not see any reason to name an official repository, but if I were pressed, that copy at github is not the one I would nominate.

Paolo Ciarrocchi· Nov 23, 2011, 13:44 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Daniele Segato <daniele.bilug@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> [1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on "Git source repository"
>> is https://github.com/gitster/git
>
> That one is as official as anybody's "git clone" from many of the
> distribution points.
>
> I do not see any reason to name an official repository, but if I were
> pressed, that copy at github is not the one I would nominate.

But that's the only repo mentioned in the git-scm home page.

Regards,
   Paolo

Frans Klaver· Nov 23, 2011, 15:47 UTC · re: Paolo Ciarrocchi · lore

Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Daniele Segato <daniele.bilug@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> [1] according to http://git-scm.com/ the link on "Git source repository"
>>> is https://github.com/gitster/git
>>
>> That one is as official as anybody's "git clone" from many of the
>> distribution points.
>>
>> I do not see any reason to name an official repository, but if I were
>> pressed, that copy at github is not the one I would nominate.
>
> But that's the only repo mentioned in the git-scm home page.

The note from the maintainer[1] mentions

	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
	https://github.com/git/git
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/

I would assume one of those would be a nomination for 'official' repo.

Maybe something for Scott C. to address?

Cheers, Frans

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/184174

Junio C Hamano· Nov 23, 2011, 17:02 UTC · re: Frans Klaver · lore

Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

>> But that's the only repo mentioned in the git-scm home page.
>
> The note from the maintainer[1] mentions
>
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
> 	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
> 	https://github.com/git/git
> 	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
>
> I would assume one of those would be a nomination for 'official' repo.
>
> Maybe something for Scott C. to address?

As long as the link says "Git source repository" without "the official", Scott is doing the right thing. It is just one of the copies that I push into, so it may be considered more official than a fork of my history by a random unknown person.

As Git is distributed, we do not need a single "official" repository. If you really want to name one, my private working repository at my home machine would be what is closest to one, as patches and pull requests are processed there and then the result is pushed out to the above four and a few others. But that "official" one is not exposed to the outside world ;-)

Frans Klaver· Nov 23, 2011, 21:30 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:02:08 +0100, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The note from the maintainer[1] mentions
>>
>> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
>> 	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
>> 	https://github.com/git/git
>> 	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
>>
>> I would assume one of those would be a nomination for 'official' repo.
>>
>> Maybe something for Scott C. to address?
>
> As long as the link says "Git source repository" without "the official",
> Scott is doing the right thing. It is just one of the copies that I push
> into, so it may be considered more official than a fork of my history by  
> a
> random unknown person.
>
> As Git is distributed, we do not need a single "official" repository. If
> you really want to name one, my private working repository at my home
> machine would be what is closest to one, as patches and pull requests are
> processed there and then the result is pushed out to the above four and a
> few others. But that "official" one is not exposed to the outside world  
> ;-)

Since official is a rather unreal term here, let's just drop it. There are a few repositories that the maintainer currently pushes to, and those are the most reliable ones to use if you want the latest git vanilla. Other than that, there's going to be no difference from the next git.git clone.

It might remove some confusion if these repos would be reflected on websites focusing on git as they are in the maintainers notes, but that's probably up to the respective webmasters then.

Frans

Daniele Segato· Nov 22, 2011, 15:56 UTC · lore

Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 01:29 +1100, Andrew Ardill wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Since the *official* repo is now hosted on github, why don't making
> use
> > of the github ticketing system? [1]
> 
> From memory, only members of an organisation/owner of an account can
> manage tickets on github. This would be difficult to organise for
> git.

Well... Actually I think the mailing list works pretty well.

And the ticketing system would only be useful to use as a shared TODO list.

Let me explain my idea with an example:

An issue is discussed, a bug is acknowledged and a proposed solution is discussed, this all happen in the mailing list, like it always has.

Someone in the "git management" (the one that usually choose how git should evolve) open a ticket, copy the relevant part of the mailing list (or link to the discussion in the archive) and (optionally) place the bug / feature / enhancement into a roadmap / milestone

If the issue is not assigned anyone can see it and come by in the email with a patch proposal.

This is just an idea, I can't propose myself to such a job, I wouldn't be able to provide the appropriate support to it.

Show 6 quoted lines

> > You probably already discussed this tons of times but I can't figure
> out
> > how you are gonna remember to do something if you don't have a
> roadmap
> > and a ticketing system that allow you to trace the bugs and
> features.

> We have previously discussed this, and it boils down to "if someone
> can ensure it is maintained, let's do it". So far no-one has put their
> hand up and there is a fear of the system becoming clogged with many
> issues that are not maintained.

I see, I can understand why, it's hard to just find the time to read all the messages in this mailing list.

Regards, Daniele Segato

Junio C Hamano· Nov 22, 2011, 19:46 UTC · re: Daniele Segato · lore

Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

Daniele Segato <daniele.bilug@gmail.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Let me explain my idea with an example:
>
> An issue is discussed, a bug is acknowledged and a proposed solution is
> discussed, this all happen in the mailing list, like it always has.
>
> Someone in the "git management" (the one that usually choose how git
> should evolve) open a ticket, copy the relevant part of the mailing list
> (or link to the discussion in the archive) and (optionally) place the
> bug / feature / enhancement into a roadmap / milestone

This step I wouldn't buy, if you count me as part of "management".

But I suspect that curation of issues, prodding parties involved and closing inactive/stale ones can be done by volunteer project secretaries without requiring an authority to choose how git should evolve.

cf. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/110117/focus=110129