develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2008

Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
David Golden
Date:
November 14, 2008 09:34
Subject:
Re: git workflow (was Re: git?)
Message ID:
5d4beb40811140934w61b8afe0r49adcbdacae0bfba@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Craig A. Berry
<craig.a.berry@gmail.com> wrote:
> The other obvious path to take is to maintain two completely separate
> copies of the repository and keep each one checked out to a different
> branch.  Is that what people do?  If so, how do you test merging your
> blead changes back to 5.10.x without simply submitting a patch to
> yourself (which kind of defeats the purpose of having a tool with
> highly touted merge capabilities)?  Do I have to set up my local maint
> repository to track my local blead repository as if it were "remote"?
> If so, how exactly do I do that?  If not, what should I do instead?

You're pushing the limits of my git-fu, but I think one way to handle
this is to always work in your own branch, not in the upstream
tracking branches.  (Branches are very cheap and git manages merge
tracking)  Think of the branch as the way you "submit a patch to
yourself" -- it's a stream of commits.

So -- albeit not having done this -- I would try to do it along the lines:

* branch blead ("my-blead") and hack until satisfied
* branch 5.10.x ("my-maint") and try merging "my-blead" into "my-maint"
* toggle back and forth until satisfied
* send patches from tip of "my-blead" vs blead tip and tip of
"my-maint" and maint tip
* OR push "my-blead" and "my-maint" and tell pumpkings to pull them

I think you could even freely merge fixes in "my-maint" back into
"my-blead" as needed.

--David

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About