On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:52:40AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 14.04.2021 17:19, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> That's not my experiance. The cases where I know of maintainers are
> using a source-git model with Fedora / RHEL already, are doing so
> precisely because it makes ongoing maint and rebasing waaaaay easier
> than with dist-git, especially when there are alot of downstream
> patches (100's or even 1000's).
In some cases, yes.
> I woudn't expect Fedora to track the git-master in most cases. You
> generally still want Fedora to be base off releases, so you'd want
> to track starting fron a release tag or branch.
One more question. If the upstream ignores tags, can I create tags myself in
Of course. Downstream source-git can have any additional git tags
it wants. It would be wise to pick a naming scheme for the downstream
tags that is unlikely to clash with potential future upstream tags.
> There are several ways you can do source git and they don't
> imply force pushes, so I think this is probably inventing a
> problem where none yet exists.
You need force pushes support in order to perform git rebases.
Err, I illustrated an example showing this is not the case, that
you've quoted right here:
> eg if upstream has v1.0 and v1.2 tags, I might have a
> branch, and if I rebase Fedora to v1.2, then I'd just switch to
> using a v1.2-f33 branch instead. The v1.0-f33 history remains
> intact forever, no force push required to rebase to new version.
Looks like a dirty hack. Another pain for the maintainers.
It isn't a dirty hack. This is a normal model for maintaining
maint branches based off releases.