[Development] Please warn of force pushes...

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com
Tue Apr 23 19:11:43 CEST 2013


On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 09:46:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 23 de abril de 2013 18.20.11, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > I, for one, will not touch any of the rebasing branches, not even to test
> > > them. It's too much work to rebase on top of a moving base.
> > 
> > i call that making a mountain out of a molehill.
> > $ git fetch
> > $ git rebase --onto @{u} HEAD~4
> 
> Would you call me experienced with Git?
> 
> Well, I have never successfully used git rebase --onto without reading the man 
> page first and paying attention to the ASCII Art graphs.
> 
that's unfortunate. :P

> Besides, that's unwieldy. I don't carry a handful of commits in my branches. I 
> carry somewhere from 60 to 120. So, no, moving target == off-limits for me.
> 
this is an entirely constructed example. you are not going to have 100
changes on top of a wip branch which is too quickly moving to adhere to
the mainline submission policies.
and, ehm, you are the only person within qt-project who has 100 pending
changes in a single branch. seriously.

> > > Especially if they're bypassing the CI, they could and should just use
> > > a repository elsewhere. When the branch is ready, it will be submitted
> > > as individual patches to be reviewed by the regular reviewers, maybe
> > > starting the work branch.
> > 
> > it's unreasonable to ban everything that does not comply with the
> > standard workflow for mainline branches.
> 
> Yes, it is. Why do they need to use the mainline repositories if they are not 
> going to adhere to the policies that are in place?
> 
> No, really, why do those branches need to be in the main repositories?
> 
> I'll give one answer, out of past discussion, and just to prove that yes I am 
> trying to understand both sides:
> 
> it is nice to be there because other people sometimes see the commits coming 
> in and will comment on them.
> 
> 
> With that in mind, I change my proposal and I will say that rebasing branches 
> are acceptable in the mainline repositories, provided they are clearly marked. 
> It's minimal impact and it solves the problem of surprise by selecting the 
> people who may use that branch.
> 
as far as i can see, the admin who created the winrt branch (not me)
failed to comply with the wip/ policy. i'm sure adding more naming
policies will improve that situation ... not.

> > and if you did, you'd need to ban playground repos as well (where
> > typically non-approvers can approve changes).
> 
> By definition, a playground repository is not a mainline repository.
> 
but it lives on our gerrit, so it's "official".
i don't see a difference between a non-mainline branch of an "accepted"
repository and the branches of a playground repository. there is no such
thing as a mainline _repository_ - on the server, we don't clone: we
branch.



More information about the Development mailing list