RFR: GIT Package VCS

[Jesse Keating]

Taking this threadling over to fedora-devel as well (:

On Thursday 07 June 2007 21:59:27 Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 21:18 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > <strawman>
> > We have two things for the upstream in our package SCM.  We have the
> > prestine tarball stashed away in a lookaside, and we have an exploaded
> > tree of the source.  We use the exploaded tree of the source to manage
> > our patches to that source and to help with rebases.  However the patches
> > we manage always apply to the prestine point.  At package build time, the
> > patches we manage + the spec file + the prestine tarball stashed away are
> > combined to make an srpm, and that is shoved through the build system.
> > </strawman>
>
> So I see two ways to store patches:
>  vendor-branch
>
>   |-- Foo.patch branch
>   |
>   |-- Bar.patch branch
>
> Foo.patch and Bar.patch both directly apply to the upstream vendor
> branch.
>
>  vendor-branch
>
>   |-- Foo.patch branch
>   |
>        |-- Bar.patch branch
>
> Foo.patch is the first patch against vendor-branch.  Bar.patch is
> committed to the combination of vendor-branch and Foo.patch.
>
> At first I was hoping to do the first way as it makes it easier to
> cherrypick changes for upstream.  However, it quickly became complex as
> we had to manage a separate merge branch that was equivalent to the
> second storage graph.  Whenever we rebased we would potentially have to
> remove conflicts from the second graph as well as the first.
>
> So I decided that going directly to the second style was preferable.
> That does not have the enhanced cherrypicking benefits to upstream but
> it still allows us to work with individual patches within the VCS more
> easily than when they were simply patches stored in CVS.
>
> Do you see a way around this limitation?
>

I honestly don't have deep enough knowledge of the SCMs to know how to setup 
how your patches are managed.  If there was a patch management system 
wouldn't it allow you to remove various patches so that you could get 
Bar.patch in a state that it would apply to vendor-branch without any other 
patches, or with only the absolutely required patches applied as well?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070608/8d356649/attachment.sig>