TODO
- test case for new-upstream-v0
-
- --anchor option to specify commit(s) to treat as as anchor(s)
-
reference docs
- git-debrebase(5) data model
git-debrebase(1) command line
tutorial
dgit-maint-debrebase(7)
someone should set branch.<name>.mergeOptions to include --ff-only ?
- clean up remains of NOTES and README
+ clean up remains of README
arrange for dgit to automatically stitch on push
-# git-ffqrebase start [BASE]
-# # records previous HEAD so it can be overwritten
-# # records base for future git-ffqrebase
-# git-ffqrebase set-base BASE
-# git-ffqrebase <git-rebase options>
-# git-ffqrebase finish
-# git-ffqrebase status [BRANCH]
-#
-# refs/ffq-prev/REF relates to refs/REF
-#
-# git-debrebase without start, if already started, is willing
-# to strip pseudomerges provided that they overwrite exactly
-# the previous HEAD
-# xxxx is this right ? what matters is have we pushed
-# I think in fact the right answer is:
-# git-debrebase always strips out pseudomerges from its branch
-# a pseudomerge is put in at the time we want to push
-# at that time, we make a pseudomerge of the remote tracking
-# branch (if raw git) or the dgit view (if dgit)
-# for raw git git-ffqrebase, do want preciseley to record
-# value of remote tracking branch or our branch, on start, so we
-# overwrite only things we intend to
-# the previous pseudomerge check for tags and remote branches ?
-
-
-=========
-
-special commit tags
-overall format
- [git-debrebase[ COMMIT-TYPE [ ARGS...]]: PROSE, MORE PROSE]
-
-[git-debrebase: split mixed commit, debian part]
-[git-debrebase: split mixed commit, upstream-part]
-[git-debrebase: convert dgit import, debian changes]
-[git-debrebase anchor: convert dgit import, upstream changes]
-
-[git-debrebase upstream-combine . PIECE[ PIECE...]: new upstream]
-[git-debrebase anchor: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, merge]
-[git-debrebase: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, changelog]
-
-[git-debrebase convert-from-gbp: drop patches]
-[git-debrebase anchor: declare upstream]
-[git-debrebase pseudomerge: stitch]
-
-[git-debrebase convert-to-gbp: commit patches]
-
-m{^\[git-debrebase (?:\w*-)?upstream combine \.((?: $extra_orig_namepart_re)+)\]}
-
-Every anchor commit must be a merge. In principle, this is not
-necessary. After all, we are relying on the
- [git-debrebase anchor: ...]
-commit message annotation in "declare" anchor merges (which
-do not have any upstream changes), to distinguish those anchor
-merges from ordinary pseudomerges (which we might just try to strip).
-
-However, the user is going to be doing git-rebase a lot. We really
-don't want them to rewrite an anchor commit. git-rebase
-trips up on merges, so that is a useful safety catch.
-
-
-=========
-
workflow
git-debrebase blah [implies start] strips pseudomerge(s)
commit / git-debrebase / etc.
dgit --damp-run push
- hook: call git-debrebase prep-push adds new pm ? passes --overwrite ?
- dgit push does not update remote
+ hook: call git-debrebase prep-push dgit push does not update remote
+ or something, must add patches at least
- commit / git-debrebase / etc. strips pm(s) including last one
+ commit / git-debrebase / etc. strips patches
dgit push
- hook: call git-debrebase prep-push adds new pm ? passes --overwrite ?
- dgit push DOES update remote
+ hook: call git-debrebase prep-push dgit push DOES update remote
commit / git-debrebase / etc. strips last pm, but arranges
that remade pm will incorporate it
-Aha!
-
-When we strip a pm, we need to maybe record it (or something) as the
-new start point.
-
-We do this if the pm is contained within the output branch.
-
-Actually this is not special to PMs.
-
-We need to record a new to-be-overwritten commit
- merge-base( our branch tip, relevant remote )
-
-If this is not a descendant of the relevant remote, then we are going
-to have a problem when we push so issue a warning or fail.
-
-
-
-How about
+========================================
- git-debrebase start or git-debrebase [continue]
+Theory for ffq-prev
- with no recorded will-overwrite
+ refs/ffq-prev/REF relates to refs/REF
- putative will-overwrite is
- one model:
- our current tip
- obviously it is safe to say we will overwrite this
- we do not need to worry about whether this will
- overwrite not-included changes in the remote
- because either the will-overwrite is not
- ff from the remote (in which case later failure,
- see below); or the will-overwrite _is_ ff
- from the remote ie our tip is later than the
- remote and includes all of its changes
+When we strip a pm, we need to maybe record it (or something) as the
+new start point.
- this model tends to keep ad-hoc commits made on our
- tip branch before we did rebase start, in the
- `interchange view' and also in the rebase stack.
+When we do a thing
- other model:
- merge-base( current remote, current tip )
+ with no recorded ffq-prev
- it is safe to overwrite current tip, by the
- argument above
+ ffq-prev is our current tip
- it is always safe to rewind will-overwrite: all
- that does is overwrite _less_ stuff
+ obviously it is safe to say we will overwrite this
+ we do check whether there are not-included changes in the remotes
+ because if the new ffq-prev is not ff from the remotes
+ the later pushes will fail
- this is the earliest overwrite we can make that
- will be pushable to the remote
+ this model tends to keep ad-hoc commits made on our
+ tip branch before we did rebase start, in the
+ `interchange view' and also in the rebase stack.
- in practical terms this can only be ff from the
- current remote if it is equal to the current remote;
- so what we are actually checking below is that our tip
- is ff from the remote. This ought to be true before
- the first of our rebases.
+ also we can explicitly preserve with
+ git-debrebase stitch
- this model tends to rewind and rebase ad-hoc commits
- made on our tip branch before we did rebase start,
- this is better
+ It is always safe to rewind ffq-prev: all
+ that does is overwrite _less_ stuff.
- in any case putative will-overwrite must be ff from remote.
+ in any case putative ffq-prev must be ff from remote.
Otherwise when we push it will not be ff, even though we have
- made pseudomerge to overwrite will-overwrite. So if we spot
- this, report an error.
+ made pseudomerge to overwrite ffq-prev. So if we spot
+ this, report an error. see above
- with a recorded will-overwrite
+ with a recorded ffq-prev
- we may need to advance will-overwrite, to allow us to generate
+ we may need to advance ffq-prev, to allow us to generate
future pseudomerges that will be pushable
- advancing will-overwrite is dangerous, since it might
+ advancing ffq-prev is dangerous, since it might
effectively cancel the commits that will-ovewrite is advanced
over.
- we advance it to merge-base( current remote, current tip )
+ ??? advance it to merge-base( current remote, current tip )
if possible (see above), - ie to current remote, subject
to the condition that that is an ancestor of current tip
-In each case we can strip pseudomerges freely, as needed. We do not
-want to record what pseudomerges we strip, because whether we need to
-keep them depends (only) on whether they have been pushed.
-
-Is that actually true ? What if the user actually _wanted_ to keep
-the pseudomerge despite not having pushed it ?
+ currently this is not implemented
-In that case we need to advance will-overwrite past it. We could
-provide an explicit command to do this: it would advance
-will-overwrite to the current tip (see rules above, which show that
-this is OK). Or maybe to the last pseudomerge on the current tip,
-so that the overall result will be series of pseudomerges.
-
-========================================
+ better maybe to detect divergence ? but it is rather late
+ by then!
-So, pm handling specifics:
+We check we are ff from remotes before recording new ffq-prev
-strategy is to avoid making needless pseudomerges
-pseudomerges that exist will be preserved
-(by being included in will-overwrite)
-
-This is good because the presence of a pseudomerge means we know we
-want to keep it; and that allows explicit control over history detail
-level.
-
-It does mean we must avoid making the pseudomerges unnecessarily.
-They should be made just before (ideally, part of) dgit push.
+ ---------- now follows much the same info in different words ----------
1. git-debrebase [-i etc.]
should:
- check for will-overwrite
- if is already a will-overwrite, fine, do no more
+ check for ffq-prev
+ if is already a ffq-prev, fine, do no more
if not:
check our origin branch exists and we are ff from it
check we are ff from them
if not fail
- set will-overwrite to something which is ff from
+ set ffq-prev to something which is ff from
all above branches
we use our tip, as discussed above
2. git-debrebase [--noop-ok] stitch
- makes pseudomerge with will-overwrite
- deletes will-overwrite
+ makes pseudomerge with ffq-prev
+ deletes ffq-prev
we will teach dgit to do
git-debrebase stitch
+ or some such ?
+
+following parts are not implemented and maybe aren't the
+best subcommand names etc.
3. git-debrebase push
stiches, finalises changelog, signs tags, pushes everything
for the future, when there is some automatic builder
-will-overwrite for each ref
- refs/heads/FOO
-is
- refs/ffq-prev/FOO
-
========================================
import from gbp
-[ all this is done now:
- inputs:
- current HEAD (patches-unapplied),
- this is going to be the base of the old breakwater
- nominated upstream
-
- checks:
- HEAD:<upstream> = upstream:<upstream>
- upstream..HEAD:<upstream> is empty (overrideable)
- upstremm:debian is empty (overrideable)
-
- procedure:
- construct
- run gbp pq import to generate pq branch
- new breakwater is
- old HEAD
- commit to remove d/patches
- anchor merge with upstream
- "rebase" of pq branch, each commit with d/patches stripped
-]
-
what about dgit view branch ?
ideally, would make pseudomerge over dgit view
would need to check that dgit view is actually dgit view of
ond of our ancestors
failing that first push will need --overwrite
+that is what is currently implemented
========================================
-divergence, merges:
+how to handle divergence and merges (if not detected soon enough)
same problem
if merge, look at branches before merge
we have already constructed m (previous patch or merged breakwater)
try using vector calculus in the implied cube and compute
multiple ways to check consistency ?
+
+========================================
+
+For downstreams of Debian, sketch of git-ffqrebase
+
+# git-ffqrebase start [BASE]
+# # records previous HEAD so it can be overwritten
+# # records base for future git-ffqrebase
+# git-ffqrebase set-base BASE
+# git-ffqrebase <git-rebase options>
+# git-ffqrebase finish
+# git-ffqrebase status [BRANCH]
~ianmdlvl / dgit.git / blobdiff