[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A git repository for OCaml packaging...

[ jumping back in old discussions only now, sorry, but last week was a
  busy one :) from tomorrow I'll be back again @ PPS ]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:02:44PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> Can I conclude from this summary that this remark is specific for the
>> "ocaml" package?
> Yes. I think packages that have (or had) branches will require manual  
> operation. FYI, OCaml has branches, merges, merges from other parts of  
> the svn tree, tags in various simultaneous branches, evolving layout  
> since 2003... Packages with more complex history might need more time to  
> migrate ;-)


>> Yes, thanks, though I think I've lost my memory about that, so it is
>> probably useless :-), but I'll look into it and possibly delete by
>> myself ... actually, the good choice is probably to move it as a
>> repository called "zack/new-ocaml-md5sum" (which is a good naming
>> convention for development branch until they are unleashed).
> You mean a repository in /git/pkg-ocaml-maint/zack/...? Or in your own  
> home? Or in a branch zack/... inside our main repository? If we are  
> really concerned about disk space, the latter would be the better. If  

I meant a branch called zack/something inside the main git repository.
We are using this convention in the python-debian git repository and I
found it satisfactory, it works like that:

- when someone have a non-trivial new feature to propose it creates a
  nickname/feature branch and it pushes to the central git repository
- once announced, other people can have a look at it by just tracking it
  in their local copies (no need to clone a new repo or to add an extra
  git origin)
- if accepted, the branch can be merged into master and deleted

It should be well-known that handling of zack/something branches is up
to 'zack' (in this example) so no assumption should be made like the
absence of rebases. It is up to the branch owner to do whatever he wants
with it.

> not, maybe using a separate repository would be better, so that everyone  
> is not bothered with everyone's experiments. Of course, the point of git  
> is to enable anyone to develop his own branch in his own repository.

Right, but given that new branches are not in your way unless explicitly
asked for, I don't see how creating zack/something can bother anybody


Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the
XML stuff is so ... simplistic  -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: