Hi Michael,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Michael Eager <eager@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Stephan!
>
> On 06/19/2016 07:01 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Michael Eager <eager@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Any other ways to do what I want without creating a separate forked
>>> repo for each of the sub-projects? Or have I misunderstood one of
>>> these schemes?
>>
>>
>> I think forking is the way to go here, as you want to have new code
>> and maintain that.
>
>
> This was my conclusion.
>
> What I originally wanted was a repo with two origins, the upstream for
> the master and public branches, and my repo for my branches. Git may
> be able to do all kinds of magic, but this two-origin scheme sounded
> strange after I thought about it for a while.
Well, 2 origins sound strange indeed, but "origin" is just a name to point at
a remote place. You could have ["origin" , "private"].
Once upon a time, I used ["mainline", "origin", "<other peoples name>", ...],
which I confused myself with, so now I am down to
["origin", "private", "<other peoples name">].
The difference for my work flow is that I have read permissions only
on all but one remote.
>
>> Personally I would try out submodules.
>
>
> I've used submodules on another project. There are some odd quirks,
> and lots of web pages which say to avoid submodules like the plague, but I
> didn't have lots of trouble. (After an initial bit of confusion while
> getting familiar with submodules, which is what I can say about every
> feature in Git.)
>
>>> Git submodule: Branches created in the sub-projects are pushed to the
>>> upstream repo, not to my repo. I tried to change origin and created an
>>> upstream reference, but was not able to get changes pushed to my repo.
>>
>>
>> Beware that there are 2 areas you need to look at. First the submodule
>> repo
>> needs to have a remote that points away from the projects origin (to your
>> private fork).
>
>
> I'll create an "upstream" remote to the project repo, so I can pull/rebase
> from the upstream into my forked repo. The "origin" will point to my repo.
That is similar to the "mainline" I mention above. :)
In your work flow is there such a thing of an upstream of the
superpoject containing
all these subprojects? I thought that was a collection you are
ultimately creating,
such that the superproject has only one remote (your authoritative copy), while
each submodule has 2 remotes "upstream" (that I assume to be read only for you)
and an "origin" (your maintained version, which then contains stuff that is
referenced by your superproject).
>
>
>> Then you have to look at the superproject that
>> 1) records the sha1 for the submodules internally
>> 2) all other information except the tracking sha1s must be user provided,
>> where the .gitmodules file contains recommendations (i.e. the url
>> where to
>> obtain the submodule from, whether to clone it shallowly,
>> if we have a specific branch in mind). The contents of that file
>> are not binding, e.g. if the url provided in the .gitmodules file
>> becomes
>> outdated later, it is still possible to setup the
>> submodule/superproject correctly.
>>
>> However for your business purpose, you would put the url of the private
>> forks
>> in the recommended URL of the submodules.
>>
>> As the superproject only tracks the sha1, and has this recommended pointer
>> where to get the submodule repository from, you need to take special care
>> in a rebase workflow, because the old rebased commits fall out of the
>> reachability
>> of the graph of objects, e.g.:
>>
>> Say you have a version `abc` in a submodule that is one commit on top of
>> canonical projects history, and `abc` is recorded as the sha1 in the
>> superproject.
>>
>> Then you rebase the commit in the submodule to a newer version of the
>> upstream,
>> which then becomes a new commit `def` and `abc` is not referenced any
>> more,
>> so it can be garbage collected.
>>
>> This is bad for the history of the superproject as it then points to
>> an unreachable
>> commit in its history.
>>
>> To preserve the historic non-rebased `abc` commit, you could have a
>> set of branches
>> (or tags) that maintain all the old non rebased versions.
>
>
> Sounds like every time I rebase, I should tag the repo to annotate this,
> and (as a side effect) retain the history.
>
>> This problem comes up with submodules with any workflow that requires
>> non fast forward changes (forced pushes), I think.
>>
>> So maybe you need to have an alias in the submodule for rebasing, that
>> is roughly:
>>
>> rebase:
>> if rebased history is published
>> create a tag, e.g.: "$(date -I)-${sha1}"
>> (and push that tag here or later?)
>> rebase as normal
>> carry on with life
>
>
> What do you mean "if rebased history is published".
bad wording.
"If the commits that you are going to rebase are published:"
>
> Generally I'd apply a tag after the rebase was completed successfully,
> then push both the updated branch and tags to my repo.
Sure, you can also tag after rebasing.
You only need to make sure that the history that is lost during rebase is not
pointed at from the superproject, which is the case in either version. When
first rebasing and then tagging, the tag is preserving the history for the next
rebase though, which is why I did not think of it first.
>
>> To get back to your complaint:
>>
>>> I tried to change origin and created an
>>> upstream reference, but was not able to get changes pushed to my repo.
>>
>>
>> I would imagine this to be
>>
>> (cd submodule && git remote set-url origin <your fork> && git push
>> origin)
>>
>> for plain pushing in the submodule and then
>>
>> $EDIT .gitmodules
>> # edit submodule.<name>.url to point at <your fork>
>>
>> to get the superproject correct.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
Thanks,
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html