Steven Walter wrote:
You certainly could do local versioning this way, but it isn't how I
accomplish the same thing. I keep another branch on top of my "public"
svn commits for local stuff. If I always run git-svn dcommit from the
public branch, the local changes will stay local. After committing, I
just have to rebase the local branch on onto git-svn.
Do you mix your public and private commits on the private branch, then
cherry-pick some of them over to the public branch before running
dcommit? Or do you have some other workflow?
That was actually my first suggestion to him, but he pointed out (and I
had to agree) that that would mean he's always just one mistake away
from publishing his local changes. All it takes is getting interrupted
for a moment and mistakenly thinking he already switched to the public
branch. He wants some less human-error-prone way to tell the system that
a particular change and/or a particular file is not intended for
publication, and for the system to just honor that without further human
intervention.
Actually, one could argue that the above isn't a git-svn issue at all.
You could reasonably want the same thing from git-push too (and even
from pull, though that'd be trickier.) I guess it'd take the form of
marking a commit as local-only, and having the system automatically
rebase all the local-only commits on top of the public ones.
Maybe a wrapper than maintains a pair of underlying git branches for
each user-visible branch would work. If you have a branch "foo" with
some public and some private changes (private ones in lower case here):
A---B---C---D---e---f---g foo
^ foo-public
Now if you commit a new private revision, it's like normal:
A---B---C---D---e---f---g---h foo
^ foo-public
But if you commit a new public revision, we do something like
git commit
git checkout foo-public
git cherry-pick foo
git checkout foo
git rebase foo-public
to get
A---B---C---D---H---e---f---g foo
^ foo-public
Then, when it comes time to do the push / dcommit, we always switch to
the foo-public branch first. We push / dcommit, then checkout foo and
rebase it on foo-public again (since svn dcommit will leave foo-public
pointing at a different revision.)
This seems like it should work in the context of git-svn with its
mostly-linear history. Not sure if it'd fall flat on its face in the
presence of lots of branching and merging.
I also suspect I've more or less just described StGIT and this would be
a big waste of time to reinvent from scratch.
-Steve
-
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
