+TODO
+ 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 ?
-#
-# 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/ffqrebase-prev/BRANCH BRANCH may be refs/...; if not it means
-# refs/ffqrebase-base/BRANCH refs/heads/BRANCH
-# zero, one, or both of these may exist
-#
-# 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 ?
-
-
-=========
+ clean up remains of NOTES and README
+
+ arrange for dgit to automatically stitch on push
+
+========================================
+
+# refs/ffq-prev/REF relates to refs/REF
+
+=======================================
special commit tags
overall format
[git-debrebase: split mixed commit, debian part]
[git-debrebase: split mixed commit, upstream-part]
[git-debrebase: convert dgit import, debian changes]
-[git-debrebase breakwater: convert dgit import, upstream changes]
+[git-debrebase anchor: convert dgit import, upstream changes]
[git-debrebase upstream-combine . PIECE[ PIECE...]: new upstream]
-[git-debrebase breakwater: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, merge]
+[git-debrebase anchor: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, merge]
[git-debrebase: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, changelog]
-[git-debrebase: gbp2debrebase, drop patches]
-[git-debrebase breakwater: declare upstream]
+[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 breakwater commit must be a merge. In principle, this is not
+Every anchor commit must be a merge. In principle, this is not
necessary. After all, we are relying on the
- [git-debrebase breakwater: ...]
-commit message annotation in "declare" breakwater merges (which
-do not have any upstream changes), to distinguish those breakwater
+ [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 a breakwater base commit. git-rebase
+don't want them to rewrite an anchor commit. git-rebase
trips up on merges, so that is a useful safety catch.
-
-=========
+=======================================
workflow
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!
+========================================
+
+Theory for ffq-prev
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]
-
- with no recorded will-overwrite
-
- 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
-
- 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.
+ currently this is not implemented
-Is that actually true ? What if the user actually _wanted_ to keep
-the pseudomerge despite not having pushed it ?
+ better maybe to detect divergence ? but it is rather late
+ by then!
-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.
+We check we are ff from remotes before recording new ffq-prev
-========================================
-
-So, pm handling specifics:
-
-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
(optionally, can use some other commit which is ff
from all of the above, eg one of them)
-N. git-debrebase record-ffrebase
+N. git-debrebase [--noop-ok] record-ffq-prev
does what is described above
-2. git-debrebase stitch [--noop-ok]
+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
stiches, finalises changelog, signs tags, pushes everything
for the future, when there is some automatic builder
-will-overwrite for each ref
+ffq-prev for each ref
refs/heads/FOO
is
- refs/ffrebase/FOO
+ refs/ffq-prev/FOO
========================================
new breakwater is
old HEAD
commit to remove d/patches
- breakwater pseudomerge with upstream
+ anchor merge with upstream
"rebase" of pq branch, each commit with d/patches stripped
]
ond of our ancestors
failing that first push will need --overwrite
-should this be called import or gbp2debrebase as it is now ?
-gbp uses "import" oddly but I'm tempted to use it normally here.
+========================================
+
+how to handle divergence and merges (if not detected soon enough)
+
+same problem
+ if merge, look at branches before merge
+ generate new combined branch
+ pseudomerge to overwrite merge
+
+current avaiable strategies:
+
+ maybe launder foreign branch
+
+ if foreign branch is nmuish, can rebase it onto ours
+
+ could merge breakwaters (use analyse to find them)
+ merge breakwaters (assuming same upstream)
+ manually construct new patch queue by inspection of
+ the other two patch queues
+
+ instead of manually constructing patch queue, could use
+ gbp pq export and git merge the patch queues
+ (ie work with interdiffs)
+
+ if upstreams are different and one is ahead
+ simply treat that as "ours" and
+ do the work to import changes from the other
+
+ if upstreams have diverged, can
+ resolve somehow to make new upstream
+ do new-upstream on each branch separately
+ now reduced to previously "solved" problem
+
+ in future, auto patch queue merge algorithm
+ determine next patch to apply
+ there are three versions o..O, l..L, r..R
+ 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 ?
+
+========================================
+
+# 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