X-Git-Url: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?p=dgit.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=NOTES.git-debrebase;h=f32cf87ec78e894d474bd149e4c7d3603fd9aaad;hp=aa725b13e77b551b306a93f78882522123637f58;hb=297ff51a0df2098ea9fe088e229bcd1318bfe466;hpb=cdb3884ed9c0a404c956fd0bc3df420ee545debe diff --git a/NOTES.git-debrebase b/NOTES.git-debrebase index aa725b13..f32cf87e 100644 --- a/NOTES.git-debrebase +++ b/NOTES.git-debrebase @@ -1,3 +1,16 @@ +TODO + tutorial + dgit-maint-debrebase(7) + someone should set branch..mergeOptions to include --ff-only ? + + 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 ? + + + workflow git-debrebase blah [implies start] strips pseudomerge(s) @@ -5,107 +18,186 @@ 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! + +# 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 [] downstream-rebase-launder-v0 # experimental + + +======================================== + +Theory for ffq-prev + + refs/ffq-prev/REF relates to refs/REF 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. +When we do a thing -Actually this is not special to PMs. + with no recorded ffq-prev -We need to record a new to-be-overwritten commit - merge-base( our branch tip, relevant remote ) + ffq-prev is our current tip -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. + 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 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. + also we can explicitly preserve with + git-debrebase stitch -How about + It is always safe to rewind ffq-prev: all + that does is overwrite _less_ stuff. - git-debrebase start or git-debrebase [continue] + 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 ffq-prev. So if we spot + this, report an error. see above - with no recorded will-overwrite + with a recorded ffq-prev - 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 + we may need to advance ffq-prev, to allow us to generate + future pseudomerges that will be pushable - 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. + advancing ffq-prev is dangerous, since it might + effectively cancel the commits that will-ovewrite is advanced + over. - other model: - 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 - it is safe to overwrite current tip, by the - argument above + currently this is not implemented - it is always safe to rewind will-overwrite: all - that does is overwrite _less_ stuff + better maybe to detect divergence ? but it is rather late + by then! - this is the earliest overwrite we can make that - will be pushable to the remote +We check we are ff from remotes before recording new ffq-prev - 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. + ---------- now follows much the same info in different words ---------- - this model tends to rewind and rebase ad-hoc commits - made on our tip branch before we did rebase start, - this is better +Re git-debrebase [--noop-ok] stitch - in any case putative will-overwrite 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. + we will teach dgit to do + git-debrebase stitch + or some such ? - with a recorded will-overwrite +following parts are not implemented and maybe aren't the +best subcommand names etc. - we may need to advance will-overwrite, to allow us to generate - future pseudomerges that will be pushable +3. git-debrebase push - advancing will-overwrite is dangerous, since it might - effectively cancel the commits that will-ovewrite is advanced - over. + like git push only does stitch first + ??? command line parsing! - we 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 +4. git-debrebase release + + stiches, finalises changelog, signs tags, pushes everything + for the future, when there is some automatic builder + +======================================== + +import from gbp + +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 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. + 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 ? -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. +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-ffqrebase finish +# git-ffqrebase status [BRANCH]