git-debrebase: Rename `launder' to `launder-v0'

[dgit.git] / NOTES.git-debrebase

diff --git a/NOTES.git-debrebase b/NOTES.git-debrebase
index ac5a72336b0dab1dce5040e7fa8192f00ac21690..155d0da56cc8c87b45ba8e20d8ec7588840a6311 100644 (file)
--- a/NOTES.git-debrebase
+++ b/NOTES.git-debrebase
@@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
 TODO
-   more tests, see "todo" in gdr-editw
+   --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
 
@@ -44,27 +46,29 @@ 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.
 
 
@@ -265,7 +269,7 @@ import from gbp
      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
 ]
 
@@ -275,5 +279,42 @@ would need to check that dgit view is actually dgit view of
   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.
+========================================
+
+divergence, merges:
+
+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 ?