2009/3/9 Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx>: > John Dlugosz wrote: >> >> I know we (my group) should use "topic" branches and apply them back to >> the dev branch when done. There is concern that the commit history gets >> too full of detailed stuff, especially with several developers, that you >> can't tell what "really changed". So, our dev branch should appear to >> contain only commit nodes representing completed assignments; not every >> day's checkpoint and trying to keep one's own stuff on top to avoid >> merging later. >> >> I guess that's how it is on these Open Source projects where patches are >> submitted by email and applied by the maintainer. We don't see the >> details, just the final patch. But, my situation will be developers >> gathered around an in-house master repo, and everyone should be able to >> push their own changes as assignments are completed. >> >> What is the best procedure to achieve that? Or what are some good >> alternatives with trade-offs? >> > > Use topic-branches and let someone merge them into master after having > verified that they work properly. > > We usually commit simple bugfixes directly to master and then have > developers rebase their changes onto master when they're ready to The trouble with rebasing is that it then you end up with lots of patches that haven't been tested. You can end up with lots of uncompiling commits. Although merging is no better either. Then you end up with one single commit that tries to merge two trees, making it almost impossible to track down bugs that resulted from the merge. > integrate it. They push their development branches though, and further > changes to the topic are done on the topic-branches which can get > merged to master (or stable) many times. Once a topic is merged, we > always "git commit --amend" the merge commit to write a proper > commit-message for it, adding a link to our bug- and feature-tracker > so we get the at-a-glance information quickly and can dig up the > entire discussion history around the bug/feature later. Each topic > should be complete with documentation and test-cases before it's > merged. > > >> I see that if a topic branch is merged (disabling FF if applicable), the >> main line (leftmost parent) will be a history of completed topics. But, >> we don't need to keep the detailed side-branches forever, and even if >> gitk and other visualization tools can be told to just show the main >> line, advanced use such as git log this..that will forever be packed >> with the micro-details. >> > > You can tell "git log" to only show one line of history too, but besides > that, micro-details are good. You definitely want to be able to search > the micro-details when things go awry (and they will), so you see exactly > why some particular algorithm changed later. > >> So, unless someone has more input along that line, I'm assuming that we >> want to apply the completed topic as a single-parent commit. That is >> the natural result if preparing patches and then applying them, but is >> there a simpler, direct way to do that in git? >> > > You do not want to do that. We did it for a while, and it was hell when > we found out that one of them broke down. The really, really *nice* thing > about git is called "git bisect". What makes it so awesomely nice is > that, instead of looking at a 100k diff-file knowing that somewhere in > there a bug was introduced, you get (with good discipline using small > commits), a 1-40 line patch with a clear and concise message of why > those changes were thought necessary at that time. Applying a topic > branch as a single patch would rob you of that functionality, and you > will regret it. Trust me on this. > >> The detailed topic branches can be kept around for a while, for the >> original author to extend if it needs to be returned to, and to examine >> if the gestalt change in the single commit is too overwhelming to >> understand, or to help figure out what might have broken. But after a >> while they can be deleted and then gc will free up the disk space. >> > > But if they do need to be returned to, you cannot merge them again if > you've already applied the topic-patch (ugh), since you'd get conflicts > if any of the sections touched by the patch have been changed since. > > We use topic-branches quite a lot. When we're done with them we delete > the branch-pointers but I wouldn't, ever, dream of re-cooking them as > mega-patches when applying them to master. > > -- > Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx > OP5 AB www.op5.se > Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 > > Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and > terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war > on peace. > -- > 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 > -- 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
