adding Pratyush for the Git Gui stash suggestion.. On 24/05/2021 16:06, Andre Ulrich wrote: > Hi Philip, thanks for your detailed answer! > Zitat von Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>: > >> Hi André, In-line and bottom posting is preferred. >> > > Oh ok, thanks for the tip. > >> On 24/05/2021 07:13, Andre Ulrich wrote: >>> Hello everybody, thanks for your help, I really appreciate it! >>> >>> What I have described was only an abstract example, because I did not >>> want to bother you with the whole story. I will try to explain my >>> actual situation: >>> - first: there is no txt. file, it is jupyter notebooks (.ipynb) and >>> they are not only about programming, there are also lots of markdown >> I've not used jupyter notebooks so below is more about the general >> process.. >> >>> - second: I am working with my professor over GitLab and I look for >>> options to further improve these notebooks >>> - third: I have to develope a nice GitLab workflow >> GiLab noted here >>> >>> I know, diffing and merging of notebooks is another story (but we can >>> handle that with nbdime). >>> And I know, there are lots of guides on git workflows on the internet >>> (and that is pretty much just what I have adopted). >>> >>> So this is how we proceed: >>> - my prof has a repo on GitHub >> but GitHub here.. > > sorry, I have mixed it up. It meant GitLab > >>> - I have forked the repo >>> - I have cloned the forked repo >>> - I have created a branch 'update' in my local clone >>> - I edit a notebook on the branch 'update' and commit >>> - I push 'update' to my forked repo on GitHub >>> - I create a merge request >> >> So this is using the on-line web UI? > > Yes, I press the button "Create merge request" (it autmatically > appears, as soon as I have pushed a new branch into the forked repo). > But all the other steps (besides the forking) > are done in the Git-for-Windows bash command line. > Then my prof receives a notification (also UI button in GitLab). At > this point, my prof could even view the changes on GitLab, BUT... (GOTO1) -> (FROM1).. > >> >> There is some contention between the GitHub/GitLab pull/merge request >> process (on-line) and the local command line (cli) approach to merging >> as they can be at cross-purposes... >> >> Most earlier responses have been about using the command line rather >> than the web-UI. >> > > Yes, the merging is done locally via command line. After locally > mergin, the resulting master is pushed back to GitLab You could use --no-commit, so that the merge can be inspected and the relevant parts picked or updated, but beware losing the second parent link, and that you could be creating an "evil merge" (in Git terminology that's content that was in neither parent.., rather than an automated conflict free merge..) For your pushing (as opposed to the professor's) look ate the remote.pushDefault config setting allowing you to have the prof's repo as your upstream, but your own fork as the place you naturally push to (see https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=%3C20191031154217.GA30187%40sigill.intra.peff.net%3E). Are others also doing development in the same notebook or on the same repo during this review cycle? This can affect how any overlaps in the changes affect each other > >> The Git-for-Windows (GfW) development does use the GitHub PR approach, >> leveraging the email notifications, and the ability (of the developer, >> in response to maintainer comments) to force push an updated branch >> (i.e. using the same branch name) to re-run the approval and on-line >> merging. >> >>> - my prof reviews the changes and accepts them (if I have done >>> acceptable work) >> i.e. the PR was/will be taken verbatim, (or with minor amendments if the >> prof is the maintainer and you've allowed that), at least on GitHub.. >>> >>> So the last point is where we still want to do some fine tuning. Right >>> now this looks about: my prof fetches my edits and locally checks out >>> a branch to compare the changes with git diff. >>> But in this diff view you can't edit the files. >> Hmm, do you mean the prof is viewing your changes in the diff-view of >> the web-UI? (likely as that's the notification link;-). >> You/The prof can switch to views with more context if needed. > > (FROM1) ... diffing jupyter notebooks in the GitLab web UI looks > horrible (because common diff tools can't really handle the notebooks > underlying json structure). > Thats why my prof diffs the notebooks locally via command line. Are these 'large' a commit/changeset, or many smaller commits? And does your project need good fine detail history (so you can reason about small changes from months ago)? Some projects benefit from the fine detail, while for others it's a waste. It will depend on whether it will help the prof for selecting which commits to accept and which to reject (rather than having to pick apart a large commit) > And then also the merging happens locally via command line. After > mergin, the master is beeing pushed back to GitLab The --no-commit may be useful here to enable that early inspection before the actual commit. > >> >> If the prof has truly fetched the branch from your remote e.g. >> "Ulrich/testing" it can be checked out locally as a detached head for >> testing, local changes made, etc, and then the prof can either create a >> fresh branch to hold those comments, and push them to a place you can >> see, or directly make the edits on the web-UI. >> > > Yes, that fetching and checking out is exactly what's happening. > That's how my prof locally reviews my changes to decide whether they > are good or not. It's worth ensuring that the `rtb` (branch that tracks a remote's branch - remote tracking branch) concept manages to stick in your head (and the profs) - you don't need a local branch of the same name as the remote ;-) It took me a few years to get that into my head! > >> Often in the GfW PR reviews the comments are made via the web-UI, with >> code suggestions, and the developer than updates & tests their local >> branch, and force pushes the update for a follow up review. >> >>> So you have to separately open up another window to edit the changes >>> (lets say my prof only wants to keep some of my changes, but not all). >>> >>> So my Question is: is there any possibility, to be able to view (and >>> even edit, if necessary) the changed notebook in the merging process >>> (as in my example with the 3way merge)? >> >> I'm not aware of such a mechanism (as simply described) but I'm sure >> there are ways to use the "staging area" view (e.g. via the Git-gui) to >> selectively pick out hunks and lines that are staged (and non-selected >> hunk/lines stashed) to give a testable worktree during the 'merge'. > > Ah ok, this could be an idea (it would requiere some more research, as > I haven't used the git gui before (I want to learn everything from the > scratch using the command line)) I commonly use the Gui when picking apart a large commit into smaller ones when I'm happy that there's no overlaps. Small patches make for easier merging and fault finding, and better commit messages (good thesis practice) > But to be honest, I think even this approach might already be too > cumbersome (as this selectively picking and stashing sounds like a lot > of work itself). Unfortunately the Git Gui doesn't have a menu for stashing remaining changes, but it's simple to flip over to the terminal to stash from there to do the testing, and un-stash the remainder afterwards - I'll maybe suggest the gui could include that capability for these types of workflows (cc Pratyush Yadav <pratiy0100@xxxxxxxxx>). > But maybe I'm looking for a workflow too simple (that doesn't even > exist like that), and my prof just has to accept a little more effort > for diffing and merging? Often it is a case of tweaking the workflow to use a capability you/she/he wasn't aware of to give you that improved review process. It doesn't help that I'm ignorant of how the jupyter notebooks are internally formatted and how your diffing tool shows it (have you set up the difftool options for command line use? > >> Merge is commonly seen/discussed as a single continuous step, rather >> than being a fully uninterruptible process. >> >>> Or is the only option to separately view the diff and edit the >>> notebook (two seperate steps instead of one)? >>> >>> The latter would also be acceptable, if it really is the only way. Bu >>> it would be nice, if viewing and editing could be done in one >>> convenient step during merging. >> >> The key here is probably to clarify which parts are being done on the >> server's web-UI, and which parts are from a local fetch/checkout >> viewpoint. >> > > both the viewing (diff) and the editing (separate editor) are beeing > done locally > > Anyway, Philip, thanks again for the detailed answer and your time! No problem. As an engineer, real world workflows are an interest;-) Philip > > Many Greetings > André Ulrich > >> Philip >> >>> >>> Many greetings >>> André Ulrich >>> >>> >>> Zitat von "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>>> On 2021-05-23 at 09:48:55, Johannes Sixt wrote: >>>>> [resending, as I forgot to include git@vger] >>>>> >>>>> Am 22.05.21 um 17:48 schrieb Andre Ulrich: >>>>> > Let's say I have a .txt file on my master branch. I used >>>>> > >>>>> > git add . >>>>> > >>>>> > and >>>>> > >>>>> > git commit -m "blabla" >>>>> > >>>>> > so everything is staged and in the history. Now I check out a new >>>>> branch >>>>> > >>>>> > git checkout -b testing >>>>> > >>>>> > and edit the .txt file. I add some new lines at the end, but I also >>>>> > change some of the already existing lines. Then again I add and >>>>> commit >>>>> > everything. Then I use >>>>> > >>>>> > git checkout master >>>>> > >>>>> > and >>>>> > >>>>> > git merge testing >>>>> > >>>>> > I would expect git to tell me "hey, wait, you have changed some of >>>>> the >>>>> > first lines in the .txt file. When you merge, your code on master >>>>> will >>>>> > be altered". But git just merges everything in. >>>>> > Just imagine this was working code, and changing some of the first >>>>> lines >>>>> > breaks everything in the following lines. >>>>> > I think I have found out what is the problem: git considers this a >>>>> fast >>>>> > forward merge (since there were no commits on master between the >>>>> > creation and the merging of the test branch). >>>> >>>> Yes. However, if Git did an actual merge, the result would be the >>>> same. >>>> In a three-way merge, if one side changes, and the other does not, the >>>> change is adopted. A fast-forward merge just avoids the merge commit. >>>> >>>>> > But this is annoying. I want to be able to choose, what changes I >>>>> want >>>>> > to keep, when I do the merge (just as in case of a 3way merge, >>>>> when you >>>>> > can call a graphical merge tool to decide what lines to keep). >>>>> >>>>> But in a 3-way merge, you only get to choose which changes you >>>>> take if >>>>> there is a conflict. If, in your example, you had committed a >>>>> change to >>>>> a different file on master before the merge, you would get a >>>>> non-fast-forward (3-way) merge, and still no opportunity to choose >>>>> which >>>>> changes you take because there would be no conflict. >>>>> >>>>> And why do you think we need a general warning "when you merge, your >>>>> code on master will be altered"? Why would I want to make a merge >>>>> into >>>>> master if not to change the code on master? >>>> >>>> I suspect Andre has a goal here or a specific use case that we're not >>>> understanding. If we got some more explanation about what's going on, >>>> we could probably offer a more useful response addressing that >>>> specific >>>> use case or goal. It might not be a use case we support, but at least >>>> we could address it directly. >>>> -- >>>> brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) >>>> Houston, Texas, US >>> >>> > >
