On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Kristis Makris wrote: > Jan, thanks for trying to clarify this for me. > > I am working on adding integration support of Git with bug-trackers, > using Scmbug. There may be an argument here towards/against distributed > bug-trackers when it comes to Git. > > Maybe there are things here I don't fully understand yet. > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 19:22 +0200, Jan Hudec wrote: > > >>> Kristis Makris wrote: > > >>>> I want the integration when I apply the tag to a local repository, NOT > > >>>> only when I push/pull. > > > > Care to explain why that would ever be useful? It's local, which means that: > > - the user can take it back without a trace it ever happened (git tag -d or > > even git update-ref -d) and > > - noone except the user will see it anyway, so it's not like they should > > care either. > > I have two use cases: > > (1) A developer maintains besides his local copy a local bug-tracking > system in which he tracks his changes. We would like to apply various > verification policies when he commits or tags. For example, for tagging > we wants to ensure that he tags giving consistent labels to his > intermediate builds. e.g. as in: > > http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-9/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS-CONVENTION-BASED-LABELING > > Or he may want to have Git force him to also supply a log message along > with a tag, so that he can remember later more accurately why a tag was > created and what it really captures. Even if Git (or other SCM systems) > don't natively support log messages on tags. Scmbug plans to implement > this. Git supports using tags for a variety of other purposes in addition to the traditional ones (for example, you can tag a version as "the changes I'm sure of" or "the version I know is broken"; furthermore, your regression testing system could give you a tag that tags the commit you sent for testing with the test results). The bug tracker integration should only care about the traditional use (providing a persistant, human-recognizable name for a revision). Actually, it would probably be best, for integration with git, to skip tags entirely, and use the hash. With projects using git, it is routine to know that the bug was found in some particular flawed commit that didn't get tagged. > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=219 > > > (2) I would like to apply various verification policies when work from a > local repository is finally merged with the central repository. I assume > there can/will be a central repository, and there is one "software > product" that is being released somewhere among the many copies. > > When its time to merge local changes to a central repository, the > verification policies may deem that changes are not acceptable to be > merged with the mainline. e.g. because log messages are too short, > commits during the merge are issued against bugs in "a central" > bugtracker that are either closed, assigned to someone else, or just > plain wrong bug-numbers that belong to other products: > > http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-9/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS-VALID-LOG-MESSAGE-SIZE > http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-9/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS-OPEN-BUG-STATE > http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-9/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS-VALID-BUG-OWNER > http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-26-9/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS-VALID-PRODUCT-NAME > > (I'm not very clear whether this is how Git works) > > Does someone get to write-up a brand new log comment during the merge > and the merge totally disregards older log comments ? My understanding > is that log comments on the local copy are preserved (and will need to > be mapped to bug-numbers in the central bug-tracker. In general, you send to the central repository, and it rejects you if (a) a merge would be required; you have to fetch and merge in your local repository; or (b) there's something wrong with the changes you're making. For (a), you make a merge commit and try again; the new commit has a log message, but the old commits retain their log messages. For (b), you make a different set of commits that does follow the required policy. "git rebase -i origin/master" will guide you through this process. In general, you do this before sharing your changes with anybody else, or at least before sharing them with anyone who cares about the end result, so that other people see nice commits. It's also possible to rearrange the changes you made in a bunch of local commits into a series that looks nice and makes sense and follows the project rules, when your initial work had you introducing a lot of silly mistakes and fixing them. > Thus the local verification policies may need to have already been > configured to comply with future verification policies of the central > repository. Else (perhaps considerable) mappings/adjustments will be > needed during the push to the central copy. In general, there's a ton of adjustment needed between working on a project and pushing to the central location in any system. With git, however, version control may be used locally before these adjustments are made, and this provides a huge benefit in terms of being able to prepare commits just how they should be, and in terms of being able to avoid losing work during the adjustments. In general, you want to have a local understanding of the central repository rules, so that you can do this mapping while you don't have network, but there's no reason to prevent saving your work before it conforms. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* -- 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
