Thanks Ilya and Stefan for your detailed responses.
In general I am trying to avoid having to work with patch sets/queues.
This may be acceptable as a replacement for the “testing-stage” repo.
But we don’t want to have the developer deal with patches or patch queues
in his workflow.
1. The developer will pulling from the “mainline” repository to do
development.
2. They will be committing and pushing to the “testing-stage” repository
or branch as you suggest.
3. To do (2) above they will need to sync to “testing-stage” repository or
branch, which might pull in 20-30 commits that are already in that branch
or repository.
4. He might have to resolve some conflicts before he commits it into that
“testing-stage” repository or branch.
5. During the window of (4) above, Auto bisection testing process
happening on the “testing-stage” repository or branch might have kicked
out 3 commits from that repository
6. The kicking out of the 3 commits in (5) above, would require the
developer sync to the “testing-stage” repository or branch again before
pushing it.
We want the developer workflow at (3) and (6) above, to not have to deal
with patch queues and stuff.
For him to be able to do the “sync" to the “testing-stage” repository
branch in (3) and (6) above, allow him to merge the the commits he has
already made in his local repository with the rewritten history of commits
coming from the “testing-stage” repository or branch.
What I am hearing you suggest as the way forward is the following
1. Removing bad patches in “testin-stage” repository or branch
1. Use may be branch instead of a separate repository for
“testing-stage”.
2. Pull a workspace repo for removing the bad commit and related
commits in that workspace by rewriting history in it.
3. Do git push -n --force-with-lease remote branch. If that fails
because additional commits have come bring in the additional changes and
re-attempt the push.
4. When 3 completes successfully the history would have been rewritten
into the “testing-stage”
2. Developer has made commits to history space.
3. Developer syncs to “testing-stage” repo or branch, the first time, in
preparation for pushing his changes to that branch or repo. All should go
well. Since his repo has not seen history from that branch or repo till
that time.
3. Takes time resolve issues.(While the history has changed in the
“testing-stage” repo or branch)
4. He syncs again, which is where we will have a problem. “git pull” needs
to recognize that history has changed and fail. Will it do that?
5. Drawing from Stefan Beller’s response, it looks the developer has to
either manually or through git extension
1. Recognize that the history has changed, during a git pull failure.
2. Use "git cherrypick” get his own commits in his workspace have them
recommited over the new history that is being pulled from “testing-stage”
repo or branch. Do something along the lines of
http://think-like-a-git.net/sections/rebase-from-the-ground-up/using-git-ch
erry-pick-to-simulate-git-rebase.html to achieve that.
Do I have the workflow right?
Thanks,
Sarvi
-----
Occam's Razor Rules
On 2/23/16, 2:15 PM, "Ilya Terentyev" <bacondropped@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi Saravanan,
>
>Changes that rewrite history, including (but not limited to) deleted
>commits,
>can be pushed with the --force or --force-with-lease options, like this:
>
> $ git push --force remote branch
>
>--force pushes your changes unconditionally, which may overwrite changes
>that someone else pushed between the moment you cloned the repo and pushed
>your own. --force-with-lease will check for others' pushes, so you can
>use it
>in a dry run (without actually changing anything in the remote repository)
>like this:
>
> $ git push -n --force-with-lease remote branch
>
>If someone else (like another developer with access to "testing-stage")
>pushes anything before your attempt to push, you will receive a message
>like:
>
> $ git push -n --force-with-lease remote branch
> ! [rejected] branch -> branch (stale info)
> error: failed to push some refs to remote
>
>Generally speaking, your idea is, probably, better implemented with
>patches
>or pull requests:
>
> 1) Your developers rewrite their local history as they wish
> 2) They generate patches from their commits (with git format-patch,
> for instance)
> 3) Send those patches to "testing-stage"
> 4) Apply them to staging area (without committing)
> 5) Run required checks
> 6) If checks don't pass, discard those changes
> 7) If checks pass, commit those patches
> 8) Push committed changes to "mainline"
>
>But in any case, you should better consider using feature branches for
>that.
>
>Best regards,
>Ilya T.
>
>
>On 02/24/2016 12:30 AM, Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi) wrote:
>> Hi Git Leads,
>> I am looking for git capability/way to be able to remove commits
>> from a public repository.
>>
>> Background:
>> We are looking for a multi-stage commit process where commits get pushed
>> into a public ³testing-stage² repository.
>> Where we do testing of commits before they are pushed to another public
>> ³mainline² repository.
>>
>> When there are failures seen in the public ³testing-stage² repository.
>> We would like to implement some process to go identify the bad patch and
>> completely eject it from that public ³testing-stage² repository, as if
>>it
>> was not connected.
>>
>> The plan is to use the Git History Rewriting capability described here
>> https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History
>> So I can pull a pull workspace from the public ³testing-stage²
>>repository
>> use the above mechanism to eject one or more commits from it.
>>
>> Now I would like to be able push it back to public ³testing-stage²
>> repository.
>> And allow other people to be able to sync their workspaces to this
>>public
>> ³testing-stage² repository, correctly.
>>
>> This as I understand is not supported?/recommended? in GIT.
>>
>> Mercurial addresses this with the capability to mark commits with a
>>phase
>> such as ³Draft² or ³Experimental² and having a workflow around them.
>> Described here
>> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/Phases
>>
>> http://www.gerg.ca/evolve/user-guide.html#evolve-user-guide
>>
>>
>>
>> Question:
>> What are the issues?
>> What needs to be done in terms of development, to support this
>> functionality and make it work properly in GIT?
>> Is there additional development that needs to be done to git core to
>>allow
>> this development process?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sarvi
>> -----
>> Occam's Razor Rules
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>> the body of a message tomajordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info athttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
ÿ淸º{.nÇ+돴윯돪†+%듚ÿ깁負¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+돴 듹â왲^n‡r⊆¦zË곷h솳鈺Ú&｛àz요z받쀺+€Ê+zf＂·hš닱~넮녬iÿÿï곴ÿ묎çz_溫æj:+v돣þ)山øm