[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Commit Ideas

[Brian Bouterse]

Yes what you say is right and @daviddavis also pointed this out to me via
IRC. I'm glad you posted this clarification.

One aspect of this is how many commits those actions are spread over. For
`git mv` to be handled the same as `git rm` + `git add`, both the 'rm' and
'add' must occur within the same commit. I believe that if `git rm` and
`git add` occur in different commits, the merge forward would show as an
update/delete conflict due to the diff of one commit only being `git rm`.

Thank you for posting this.

-Brian

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com> wrote:

> Excellent advice!
>
> However, I think we may have acquired some collective "knowledge" at some
> point about git mv that's not correct. This note inspired me to go look at
> docs for "git mv", just to make sure my understanding was right. A little
> voice of doubt was saying to me "It's all about diffs; is git really
> tracking name change relationships persistently?"
>
> According to this documentation, apparently not. "Git has a rename command
> git mv, but that is just for convenience. The effect is indistinguishable
> from removing the file and adding another with different name and the same
> content."
>
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitFaq#Why_does_Git_
> not_.22track.22_renames.3F
>
> I'm interpreting that to mean that if we never use "git mv" again, nothing
> will have been lost except for the time to make a few extra key strokes.
>
> Michael
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As we introduces changes to both the 2.y line and 3.0-dev branches, the
>> following behaviours will help us avoid loosing changes in Pulp3:
>>
>> - When moving code, use git mv. If you need to edit it after moving it
>> edit after the `git mv`. *
>>
>> - When moving code in pulp3, move the code, don't just copy it. This
>> usually involves deleting something out of pulp.server. For example dkliban
>> deleted the old code in this commit [0]. **
>>
>> - Consider checking in on your bugfix or feature introduced in 2.y to see
>> if it made it all the way to 3.0-dev. We can merge forward together or you
>> can ask me to merge forward if you want to be sure.
>>
>> Continue merging forward the 2.y branches to master and leaving your
>> changes there. I will continue to periodically merge master -> 3.0-dev
>> which.
>>
>> *: git mv allows git to resolve any changes from 2.y into their new
>> locations in 3.0-dev. For example when we move around our docs on the
>> 3.0-dev branch, using `git mv` allows any updates to docs on 2.y to land in
>> the right locations when the merge forward occurs.
>>
>> **: If a bugfix or feature change is introduced on 2.y, when master is
>> periodically merged into 3.0-dev a conflict will be noticed because the
>> edit from 2.y conflicts with the deleted code. This will allow us to update
>> the moved code with the change to resolve the conflict. If the old code was
>> left this would never be noticed when the merge forward occurs.
>>
>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/2815/files
>>
>> Happy coding,
>> Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20161103/ee385b39/attachment.htm>