| Message ID | 20210514124925.39229-1-bagasdotme@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Documentation/howto: tracking git.git | expand |
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes: > +Available Branches > +------------------ > + > +There are several branches on git.git with different purposes: > + > +master:: > +This is the most stable branch. Changes (topics) that are merged > +to master should have been stabilized in next and suitable for > +production use. Feature releases (vX.Y.0) are cut from this > +branch. Isn't "maint" meant to be more stable? > +next:: > +This is where topics that haven't been yet merged to master are > +stabilized and tested for breakage and regressions. It gives > +a summary forecast of what next batch of topics that will be > +merged to master looks like. > + > +seen:: > +This is the most bleeding edge branch where all excited > +developments happened. All proposed topics are queued in seen > +by the maintainer. However, these may be buggy (have breakage or > +regressions). When topics queued are deemed good and ready for > +inclusion, they are graduated to next for stabilization. This is inconsistent with what has been written elsewhere about this integration branch. In short, you should not read anything more than "the maintainer happens to have seen these topics" out of the fact that a topic is in 'seen'. Not all proposed topics will be in this branch, and a branch that was in 'seen' on one day may not be there the next day, but that does not mean anything (certainly it does not mean the topic has been "rejected"). > +Tracking > +-------- > + > +If you don't have git.git clone handy, you can obtain one by: > + > +---- > +$ git clone https://github.com/git/git.git git > +---- > + > +Now you can start hacking your topics. Don't forget to read > +`Documentation/SubmittingPatches` for instructions on patch > +submission. > + > +After some time, there will be updates to git.git. First, fetch them: > + > +---- > +$ git fetch origin > +---- > + > +Then pull the updates. > + > + - For `master`, `next`, `maint`, and `todo`, you can do fast-forward > + pull: > + > + $ git pull --ff-only I do not see a point in doing this for all of these branches, and I'd rather not to see this recommended to people who "track to develop" at all. It may make sense to do so if you do not do any development of your own and will always stay on 'master' to check out, build, test and install from the upstream, though. For those who track to develop", if you want a reference point to work from, you can do "git fetch origin" and then run $ git checkout -b mytopic origin/master for a new feature, and $ git checkout -b myfix origin/maint for a fix. You can track your progress with $ git log origin/master..mytopic $ git log origin/master..myfix If you are fixing a longstanding bug, you may even want to do $ git checkout -b myfix-for-2.29-and-above v2.29.3 $ git log origin/master..myfix-for-2.29-and-above To test your various topics, you would then do $ git checkout -B trial origin/master $ git merge mytopic $ git merge myfix ... build, test, install, employ it for daily use ... And you can make sure you do not step on toes of others by doing trial merges $ git checkout -B trial origin/seen ;# or origin/next $ git merge mytopic $ git merge myfix ... build and test which is highly recommended. This will give you a chance to notice who, if any, are working in areas of the codebase that potentially overlaps with what you are working on before you even send out your series for review. > + - For `seen`, DO NOT pull with `git pull`. This is because seen is > + in constant flux, and most often your local seen is divergent from > + the origin, caused by force-push from the maintainer. Attempting > + to pull either via merge or rebase will most likely end in > + conflict. Instead, pull by resetting the local seen to the origin: > + > + $ git reset --hard origin/seen Even better, do not even create your own 'seen' branch at all. If you are interested in what is going on $ git log --first-parent --oneline origin/master..origin/seen might be worth paying attention to, and checking out the tip of topics of other people you seen in the output and playing with it on a detached HEAD may also be useful, and if you find bugs in other's work, you can futz with the code from that commit and you may end up with a patch you can send as an improvement suggestion to the original author of the topic. But 'seen' as a whole is rarely of interest, except for the purpose of learning what other topics may be in flight. Nobody sane is supposed to be running the version from 'seen'; after all, the selection criteria of the topics in it is "some of the topics that the maintainer happened to have seen", and not even "these topics are interesting, promising and are wished to be in 'next' someday".
On 2021-05-14 22:49:52+0900, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes: > > > +Available Branches > > +------------------ > > + > > +There are several branches on git.git with different purposes: > > + > > +master:: > > +This is the most stable branch. Changes (topics) that are merged > > +to master should have been stabilized in next and suitable for > > +production use. Feature releases (vX.Y.0) are cut from this > > +branch. > > Isn't "maint" meant to be more stable? > > > +next:: > > +This is where topics that haven't been yet merged to master are > > +stabilized and tested for breakage and regressions. It gives > > +a summary forecast of what next batch of topics that will be > > +merged to master looks like. > > + > > +seen:: > > +This is the most bleeding edge branch where all excited > > +developments happened. All proposed topics are queued in seen > > +by the maintainer. However, these may be buggy (have breakage or > > +regressions). When topics queued are deemed good and ready for > > +inclusion, they are graduated to next for stabilization. > > This is inconsistent with what has been written elsewhere about this > integration branch. In short, you should not read anything more > than "the maintainer happens to have seen these topics" out of the > fact that a topic is in 'seen'. Not all proposed topics will be in > this branch, and a branch that was in 'seen' on one day may not be > there the next day, but that does not mean anything (certainly it > does not mean the topic has been "rejected"). Well, I think most of this document's points has been written in Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt and Documentation/SubmittingPatches.txt. With only 2 above points, I think if we have this document in, we'll have more things to maintain :shrug:
On 14/05/21 20.49, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes: > >> +Available Branches >> +------------------ >> + >> +There are several branches on git.git with different purposes: >> + >> +master:: >> +This is the most stable branch. Changes (topics) that are merged >> +to master should have been stabilized in next and suitable for >> +production use. Feature releases (vX.Y.0) are cut from this >> +branch. > > Isn't "maint" meant to be more stable? > I think "maint" is maintenance branch for latest feature release. For feature stabilization it happens on "main", so "master" is fully polished. >> +next:: >> +This is where topics that haven't been yet merged to master are >> +stabilized and tested for breakage and regressions. It gives >> +a summary forecast of what next batch of topics that will be >> +merged to master looks like. >> + >> +seen:: >> +This is the most bleeding edge branch where all excited >> +developments happened. All proposed topics are queued in seen >> +by the maintainer. However, these may be buggy (have breakage or >> +regressions). When topics queued are deemed good and ready for >> +inclusion, they are graduated to next for stabilization. > > This is inconsistent with what has been written elsewhere about this > integration branch. In short, you should not read anything more > than "the maintainer happens to have seen these topics" out of the > fact that a topic is in 'seen'. Not all proposed topics will be in > this branch, and a branch that was in 'seen' on one day may not be > there the next day, but that does not mean anything (certainly it > does not mean the topic has been "rejected"). > >> +Tracking >> +-------- >> + >> +If you don't have git.git clone handy, you can obtain one by: >> + >> +---- >> +$ git clone https://github.com/git/git.git git >> +---- >> + >> +Now you can start hacking your topics. Don't forget to read >> +`Documentation/SubmittingPatches` for instructions on patch >> +submission. >> + >> +After some time, there will be updates to git.git. First, fetch them: >> + >> +---- >> +$ git fetch origin >> +---- >> + >> +Then pull the updates. >> + >> + - For `master`, `next`, `maint`, and `todo`, you can do fast-forward >> + pull: >> + >> + $ git pull --ff-only > > I do not see a point in doing this for all of these branches, and > I'd rather not to see this recommended to people who "track to > develop" at all. It may make sense to do so if you do not do any > development of your own and will always stay on 'master' to check > out, build, test and install from the upstream, though. > But when someone clones git.git, Git will automatically checkout default branch (which is "master") after cloning. If he wants to checkout other branches, he had to "git checkout next" for example. I wrote it above under the assumption that someone had already checkout other branches before. > For those who track to develop", if you want a reference point to > work from, you can do "git fetch origin" and then run > > $ git checkout -b mytopic origin/master > > for a new feature, and > > $ git checkout -b myfix origin/maint > > for a fix. You can track your progress with > > $ git log origin/master..mytopic > $ git log origin/master..myfix > I think git log above shows only commits that are on mytopic/myfix/ whatever that aren't on origin/master. > If you are fixing a longstanding bug, you may even want to do > > $ git checkout -b myfix-for-2.29-and-above v2.29.3 > $ git log origin/master..myfix-for-2.29-and-above > > To test your various topics, you would then do > > $ git checkout -B trial origin/master > $ git merge mytopic > $ git merge myfix > ... build, test, install, employ it for daily use ... > > And you can make sure you do not step on toes of others by doing > trial merges > > $ git checkout -B trial origin/seen ;# or origin/next > $ git merge mytopic > $ git merge myfix > ... build and test > > which is highly recommended. This will give you a chance to notice > who, if any, are working in areas of the codebase that potentially > overlaps with what you are working on before you even send out your > series for review. > >> + - For `seen`, DO NOT pull with `git pull`. This is because seen is >> + in constant flux, and most often your local seen is divergent from >> + the origin, caused by force-push from the maintainer. Attempting >> + to pull either via merge or rebase will most likely end in >> + conflict. Instead, pull by resetting the local seen to the origin: >> + >> + $ git reset --hard origin/seen > > Even better, do not even create your own 'seen' branch at all. If > you are interested in what is going on > > $ git log --first-parent --oneline origin/master..origin/seen > OK. > might be worth paying attention to, and checking out the tip of > topics of other people you seen in the output and playing with it on > a detached HEAD may also be useful, and if you find bugs in other's > work, you can futz with the code from that commit and you may end up > with a patch you can send as an improvement suggestion to the > original author of the topic. But 'seen' as a whole is rarely of > interest, except for the purpose of learning what other topics may > be in flight. Nobody sane is supposed to be running the version > from 'seen'; after all, the selection criteria of the topics in it > is "some of the topics that the maintainer happened to have seen", > and not even "these topics are interesting, promising and are wished > to be in 'next' someday". > Thanks for your review.
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes: > On 14/05/21 20.49, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> +Available Branches >>> +------------------ >>> + >>> +There are several branches on git.git with different purposes: >>> + >>> +master:: >>> +This is the most stable branch. Changes (topics) that are merged >>> +to master should have been stabilized in next and suitable for >>> +production use. Feature releases (vX.Y.0) are cut from this >>> +branch. >> Isn't "maint" meant to be more stable? >> > > I think "maint" is maintenance branch for latest feature release. > For feature stabilization it happens on "main", so "master" is fully > polished. With the status of being back-then-most polished plus only fixes and no unnecessary new features that can introduce unstability yet to be discovered, by definition 'maint' ought to be "more stable" than 'master', no? In any case, as Đoàn Trần Công Danh pointed out, I think we have most of these written down elsewhere, and it is easier for readers if we can find a way to reorganize them and incorporate new stuff that is brought in by this proposal.
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile index 2aae4c9cbb..2b5b8b28b0 100644 --- a/Documentation/Makefile +++ b/Documentation/Makefile @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/rebase-from-internal-branch SP_ARTICLES += howto/keep-canonical-history-correct SP_ARTICLES += howto/maintain-git SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases +SP_ARTICLES += howto/tracking-gitgit API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt))) SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS) diff --git a/Documentation/howto/tracking-gitgit.txt b/Documentation/howto/tracking-gitgit.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..61dbd2540b --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/howto/tracking-gitgit.txt @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> +Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 13:26:33 +0700 +Subject: Tracking git.git +Abstract: How to track git.git repository for Git development +Content-type: text/asciidoc + +Tracking git.git +================ + +This short document shows how to track git.git (source code repository +for Git) for purposes of Git development. + +Available Branches +------------------ + +There are several branches on git.git with different purposes: + +master:: +This is the most stable branch. Changes (topics) that are merged +to master should have been stabilized in next and suitable for +production use. Feature releases (vX.Y.0) are cut from this +branch. + +next:: +This is where topics that haven't been yet merged to master are +stabilized and tested for breakage and regressions. It gives +a summary forecast of what next batch of topics that will be +merged to master looks like. + +seen:: +This is the most bleeding edge branch where all excited +developments happened. All proposed topics are queued in seen +by the maintainer. However, these may be buggy (have breakage or +regressions). When topics queued are deemed good and ready for +inclusion, they are graduated to next for stabilization. + +maint:: +This branch is used for preparing maintenance releases. Bugfixes +for feature release (vX.Y.0) are accumulated in maint. Then at +some point, the tip of the branch is tagged with vX.Y.Z. + +todo:: +This contains helper tools written by the maintainer to ease +maintaining Git. Also, "What's cooking in Git" messages are +prepared in todo before being sent to the mailing list. + +Tracking +-------- + +If you don't have git.git clone handy, you can obtain one by: + +---- +$ git clone https://github.com/git/git.git git +---- + +Now you can start hacking your topics. Don't forget to read +`Documentation/SubmittingPatches` for instructions on patch +submission. + +After some time, there will be updates to git.git. First, fetch them: + +---- +$ git fetch origin +---- + +Then pull the updates. + + - For `master`, `next`, `maint`, and `todo`, you can do fast-forward + pull: + + $ git pull --ff-only + + - For `seen`, DO NOT pull with `git pull`. This is because seen is + in constant flux, and most often your local seen is divergent from + the origin, caused by force-push from the maintainer. Attempting + to pull either via merge or rebase will most likely end in + conflict. Instead, pull by resetting the local seen to the origin: + + $ git reset --hard origin/seen
Document how to track git.git repository for Git development. Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> --- Documentation/Makefile | 1 + Documentation/howto/tracking-gitgit.txt | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 80 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/howto/tracking-gitgit.txt base-commit: df6c4f722c94641d5a9ea5496511f7043433abc2