+TODO
+ 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 ?
-
-
-=========
-
-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: gbp2debrebase, drop patches]
-[git-debrebase breakwater: declare upstream]
+ 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 ?
-m{^\[git-debrebase (?:\w*-)?upstream combine \.((?: $extra_orig_namepart_re)+)\]}
-=========
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!
-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
- 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
+
+ ---------- now follows much the same info in different words ----------
+
+Re git-debrebase [--noop-ok] 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
+
+ like git push only does stitch first
+ ??? command line parsing!
+
+4. git-debrebase release
+
+ stiches, finalises changelog, signs tags, pushes everything
+ for the future, when there is some automatic builder
========================================
import from gbp
- 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
+that is what is currently implemented
+
+========================================
+
+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 ?
+
+========================================
+
+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