Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> writes:
Dne 05. 05. 20 v 21:26 Robbie Harwood napsal(a):
> Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek(a)redhat.com> writes:
>> Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns.
>> Before I reply, I'd like to stress that we are still in a prototype
>> phase - not everything is solved (clearly) and at this point, we
>> experiment with the workflow mostly.
>> Luckily, force-pushes are not allowed in dist-git,
> That's a "current state of affairs" statement, not an ideal, as I
> understand it. Assuming that force-pushes aren't allowed means we'll
> never be able to have, e.g., non-distro branches (for testing etc.)
> that we can force push.
> This has been a pain point with RHEL dist-git; among other things, it
> means that branches can't be deleted.
That this is problem only when you cannot use PRs. If you can use PRs,
pushing some random branches into remote git repo is the biggest sin
IMO, because while you might delete the branch in remote repo once it
is not needed, I have this branch very likely pulled to my repo and
the amount of branches in my local repo I have no clue about just
rises. So if deleting branches was a point of RHEL dist-git, then this
is sad news for me. Pushing branches was probably useful in CVS days,
but that should not be the case anymore.
Well, your workflow is not my workflow.
I very often have to ship test builds (bugfixes, new features,
compatibility testing, ...). Yes, the build itself goes in COPR most of
the time (or scratch on brewkoji), but the source needs to live
somewhere - and I'd prefer it be "not just my laptop".
A branch disappearing on the remote doesn't break anything. You don't
lose your local copy. Even a force push is pretty easy to adjust to
(git reset or git rebase). This happens all the time for development
branches and I honestly doubt you notice. Force pushes are only a
problem if you're basing work on the branch.
But sure, maybe I'm sinning by doing my job. More pull requests won't
help either way.