[Cython] Git workflow, branches, pull requests

[Ondrej Certik]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
<d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no> wrote:
> On 05/13/2011 12:36 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> <d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no>  wrote:
>>>
>>> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
>>> merged twice; all commits show up two times.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same changes
>>> merged OK, but we shouldn't make this a habit. For instance, the openMP
>>> commits also show up as part of vitja's pull request, which is confusing.
>>>
>>> In Mercurial speak: The openmp branch was used like you would use a
>>> Mercurial "patch queue" in one case, and as a branch in another case. In
>>> git
>>> they are the same technically and you rely on conventions to make sure
>>> you
>>> don't treat a "queue" as a "branch".
>>>
>>> OPTION A) Either i) only branch from master, or ii) make sure you agree
>>> with
>>> whoever you're branching from that this is a "branch", not a "patch
>>> queue",
>>> so that it isn't rebased under your feet.
>>>
>>> We could also, say, prepend all patch queues with an underscore (its
>>> private).
>>>
>>> OPTION B) Stop rebasing. I'd have a very hard time doing that myself, but
>>> nobody are pulling from dagss/cython these days anyway.
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> OPTION C) The one who pushes things into the master knows master
>> enough to see whether or not it makes sense to merge this, or if it
>> was already in, he/she will simply comment into the pull request and
>> close it manually
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure you read the scenario correctly?

You wrote:

"
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
merged twice; all commits show up two times.
"

So somebody pushed in Marks' patches twice. My OPTION C) is that the
one, who pushes patches in is responsible to make sure that they only
get pushed in once.

That's what we do in sympy, we don't have any formal option A or B,
but people with push access must prove that they are capable of using
git, and not breaking (or messing up) things. Of course, everybody can
make a mistake though.

It seems to be working just great, so I just wanted to share our
experience. Let me know what doesn't make sense.

Ondrej