16 Feb
2017
16 Feb
'17
9:38 p.m.
.... which have nothing to do with history. And which have now been
publically made available/fixed.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Zachary Gorden
<drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It was not zero problems. Their entire creation of the
git virtual file
system was to overcome git's limitations.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
Sounds like a bug in their migration/etc tool. MS has history going
back to 1984 and migrated everything to Git with zero problems.
At some point you should apply Ionescu's Razor: "Hmmm, a company of
150,000 developers and the most complicated and oldest series of
repositories in the world, was able to move to Git, including while
employing people who have been there for 30 years and used to other,
older systems.... but 30 open source developers can't make that change
because X". It follows from this that X is bullshit.
On the polluting history, again, just read commits that have [FOOBAR]
in them, and ignore others. Write a post-commit hook to rewrite/squash
them.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Zachary Gorden
<drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
The project that I worked with using git has
history going back to 1988.
They certainly didn't start with git, nor did they necessarily start
with
any revision control at the beginning, but after they migrated to it
they
discovered the history problem.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Am 16.02.2017 um 14:40 schrieb Alex Ionescu:
> That being said, that type of "dirty history" only happens if you
> heavily work with branches. That's not how reactos developers work --
> we
> don't open PRs and separate branches for every checkin.
>
> These ALL sound like manufactured problems or poor/strange use of
> git.
That merge hell is easily reproducible using my default Git setup:
1) Change something in your clone of master and do a "git commit".
2) Let someone else change something in his clone of master and let him
"git commit" and "git push" it.
3) Try to "git push" your commit, won't work because of the commit of
the other person.
4) Do a "git pull" to fix the problem in 3) -> Bam! Git will do an
automatic merge of both masters and pollute your history.
You see, not a single extra branch is involved and yet we get two
parallel streams of history.
Rafal's mentioned "pull.rebase" option sounds promising, but can we
enforce that somehow?
- Colin
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev