# StGIT: stgitformatversion vs. stgit.formatversion 5 messages from 2007-06-02 to 2007-06-10. Participants: Yann Dirson, Karl Hasselström, Catalin Marinas. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/8403 ## Yann Dirson, 2007-06-02 19:16 Subject: StGIT: stgitformatversion vs. stgit.formatversion Message-ID: <20070602191641.GB6992@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070602191641.GB6992%40nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net ``` What about using branch.*.stgit.formatversion to store the version, to be consistent with other stgit-specific per-branch settings ? Bet regards, -- Yann. ``` ## Karl Hasselström, 2007-06-03 12:17 Subject: Re: StGIT: stgitformatversion vs. stgit.formatversion Message-ID: <20070603121718.GA6507@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070603121718.GA6507%40diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk In-Reply-To: <20070602191641.GB6992@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> ``` 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 ? 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 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. 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). -- Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com www.treskal.com/kalle ``` ## Catalin Marinas, 2007-06-04 22:12 Subject: Re: StGIT: stgitformatversion vs. stgit.formatversion Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/b0943d9e0706041512g2b063676x6c6c954c9fd84aeb%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20070603121718.GA6507@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> ``` On 03/06/07, Karl Hasselström 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. > 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 ``` ## Catalin Marinas, 2007-06-07 21:55 Subject: Re: StGIT: stgitformatversion vs. stgit.formatversion Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/b0943d9e0706071455n2136c75fm76571583c279d23b%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20070603121718.GA6507@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> ``` On 03/06/07, Karl Hasselström wrote: > 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. BTW, if any of you is willing to maintain such a branch, I'll happily pull from it when it gets stable. -- Catalin ``` ## Karl Hasselström, 2007-06-10 11:01 Subject: Re: StGIT: stgitformatversion vs. stgit.formatversion Message-ID: <20070610110102.GA780@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070610110102.GA780%40diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk In-Reply-To: ``` On 2007-06-07 22:55:09 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > BTW, if any of you is willing to maintain such a branch, I'll > happily pull from it when it gets stable. I'm on vacation the next few weeks (though this week I'm at the FCRC in San Diego if someone wants to say hi!) and have rather spotty internet connectivity, so I haven't really been able to follow the mailing list. But I think this would be useful, so I'll probably start doing it as soon as I'm all settled again. -- Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com www.treskal.com/kalle ```