dgit: Bail if single-debian-patch needs committing with --quilt=nofix

[dgit.git] / NOTES.git-debrebase

diff --git a/NOTES.git-debrebase b/NOTES.git-debrebase
index 2fefa91a638b0d182ccececada782bf15b21bdee..f32cf87ec78e894d474bd149e4c7d3603fd9aaad 100644 (file)
--- a/NOTES.git-debrebase
+++ b/NOTES.git-debrebase
@@ -1,74 +1,15 @@
 TODO
 TODO

-   more tests, see "todo" in gdr-editw
-   reference docs
-      git-debrebase(5)   data model
-      git-debrebase(1)   command line

    tutorial
       dgit-maint-debrebase(7)
    tutorial
       dgit-maint-debrebase(7)

-
-   clean up remains of NOTES and README
+      someone should set branch.<name>.mergeOptions to include --ff-only ?

 
    arrange for dgit to automatically stitch on push
 
    arrange for dgit to automatically stitch on push

+     dgit push usually needs to (re)make a pseudomerge.  The "first"
+     git-debrebase stripped out the previous pseudomerge and could
+     remembeed the old HEAD.  But the user has to manually stitch it.
+     To fix this, do we need a new push hook for dgit ?

 
 

-#    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 breakwater: convert dgit import, upstream changes]
-
-[git-debrebase upstream-combine . PIECE[ PIECE...]: new upstream]
-[git-debrebase breakwater: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, merge]
-[git-debrebase: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, changelog]
-
-[git-debrebase convert-from-gbp: drop patches]
-[git-debrebase breakwater: declare upstream]
-[git-debrebase pseudomerge: stitch]

 
 

-m{^\[git-debrebase (?:\w*-)?upstream combine \.((?: $extra_orig_namepart_re)+)\]}
-
-Every breakwater 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
-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
-trips up on merges, so that is a useful safety catch.
-
-
-=========

 
 workflow
 
 
 workflow
 


@@ -77,157 +18,116 @@ workflow
   commit / git-debrebase / etc.
 
   dgit --damp-run push
   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
 
   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
 
 
   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.
+# problems / outstanding questions:
+#
+#  *  dgit push with a `3.0 (quilt)' package means doing quilt
+#     fixup.  Usually this involves recommitting the whole patch
+#     series, one at a time, with dpkg-source --commit.  This is
+#     terribly terribly slow.  (Maybe this should be fixed in dgit.)
+#
+#  * Workflow is currently clumsy.  Lots of spurious runes to type.
+#    There's not even a guide.
+#
+#  * new-upstream-v0 has a terrible UI for multiple upstream pieces.
+#    You end up with giant runic command lines.  Does this matter /
+#    One consequence of the lack of richness it can need -f in
+#    fairly sensible situations.
+#
+#  * There should be a good convention for the version number,
+#    and unfinalised or not changelog, after new-upstream.
+#
+#  * Handing of multi-orig dgit new-upstream .dsc imports is known to
+#    be broken.  They may be not recognised, improperly converted, or
+#    their conversion may be unrecognised.
+#
+#  * We need to develop a plausible model that works for derivatives,
+#    who probably want to maintain their stack on top of Debian's.
+#    downstream-rebase-launder-v0 may be a starting point?
+#    maybe the hypothetical git-ffqrebase is part of it too.
+       

 
 

+# undocumented usages:
+#
+#    git-debrebase [<options>] downstream-rebase-launder-v0  # experimental

 
 
 
 

-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
         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
 
         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.
 
         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
 
         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 ?
-
-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.
-
-========================================
-
-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.
-
-1. git-debrebase [-i etc.]
-
-     should:
-        check for will-overwrite
-        if is already a will-overwrite, fine, do no more
-        if not:
-
-        check our origin branch exists and we are ff from it
-        if not fail
-
-        check our other might-be-pushed to branches
-        check we are ff from them
-        if not fail
+        currently this is not implemented

 
 

-        set will-overwrite to something which is ff from
-          all above branches
+        better maybe to detect divergence ?  but it is rather late
+        by then!

 
 

-        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)
+We check we are ff from remotes before recording new ffq-prev

 
 

-N. git-debrebase [--noop-ok] record-ffq-prev
+  ---------- now follows much the same info in different words ----------

 
 

-     does what is described above
-
-2. git-debrebase [--noop-ok] stitch
-
-    makes pseudomerge with will-overwrite
-    deletes will-overwrite
+Re git-debrebase [--noop-ok] stitch

 
     we will teach dgit to do
        git-debrebase stitch
 
     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
 
 
 3. git-debrebase push
 


@@ -239,45 +139,20 @@ N. git-debrebase [--noop-ok] record-ffq-prev
     stiches, finalises changelog, signs tags, pushes everything
     for the future, when there is some automatic builder
 
     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
 
 ========================================
 
 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
-       breakwater pseudomerge 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
 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
 
 same problem
  if merge, look at branches before merge


@@ -314,3 +189,15 @@ current avaiable strategies:
   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 ?
   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]