X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=7aOYkucq6X19QS9JrMlQ3HCKksAOTyPduzO6kAyxjUQ=; b=YzAyUND1n/CuTu6nef81dUhdEGlLGzsWJG3NZ/BiA2q4rp/nFElXPnZUdx7sZ466Lq jjqFemHZNibwcZu+E3jKDyBF5RsadYWYEKBOkKVx8NzTa6E0DSJ84g/qao3P5ZQZbHiA 0OV/aUujUoamLVioZrO+uNV13lR9x9dUS/KOy9JDQnI84WQsIEwxU9fN9BN5UFBLkOOu Vqnzj6FqgNPaD+VC2MUurSOiLvfPbyx56+lvIaZIOB9fEEXdFUVODrW/ll79np8wVkoD Eockj4vx1MjXJ0Mxzyp95HX8DE0j5Z9goRYnsqVH3YYeRYO8qSpq++PeyOsAz6CifNpx k8sw== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1511E63C-F435-44B1-9734-C7AF7AF49A92 AT sbcglobal DOT net> <20121030132922 DOT GY32696 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz> <201210312340 DOT q9VNe3VW012697 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:58:55 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] The state of gEDA/gaf (Was gEDA/PCBs diversity, Was: Pin hole size) From: Svenn Are Bjerkem To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 4 November 2012 19:18, Britton Kerin wrote: > and it should all stay)? I don't think it needs to stay forever. Right now, though, I think it is wise to give precise local information about 1. Cloning the local repository 2. Making a feature branch 3. Provide the feature branch as a patch. (presumably after testing it doesn't break anything) A git-savvy user will be able to get the source and do all this, and more, if he only knows the location of the central repository. A git newbe (even if he has been programming for ages) may need a bit more assistance. The switch from svn and cvs to git is not just a walk in the park even if svn and cvs are well known. And the upstream developers would likely want to have patches that are easy to audit and merge. git is so powerful that even the simplest things to do get swamped with special cases. geda:scm shouldn't need to teach how to use git, but a new gEDA developer should be able to do the above steps without the need to consult another page. Ideally, the part about adding remote git repositories should not be necessary. Unfortunately, gEDA has forks and clones "in the wild", and trying to pull important changes done in these repositories back into master is something which was addressed on this list. Some forks should maybe be let alone, because they have diverged too much, while others should be watched closely. It looks as if most of the GitHub clones are relatively well merged with their ancestor. Doing a remote fetch into my local git.geda-project.org clone provides a huge, but viewable, history in gitk. It is not illegal for a maintainer to pull in things he sees fit the project. When gEDA devs get the hang of providing git patches that are easy to merge, that kind of info can go away. Linux kernel maintainers do not need to pull 'secret' stuff, they are flooded. A different way of working. git-flow is a concept put on top of git to make git more streamlined. I have been using git for my own stuff at work and really struggle now that I am supposed to pull in new people into my way of thinking. I recently learned about the existence of git-flow, and by just looking at those history diagrams, I understood how they used git in a much better way than I ever would have come up with myself. http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model. I am not saying that this is a good model for gEDA, but I guess every team, and single user, using git sooner or later will struggle with all those branches that are so extremely cheap to make, but can be a PITA to merge into the correct master/development/release branch. I had to learn to walk again after git hit me. -- Svenn