GIT development branches for packagers?

Vít Ondruch vondruch at redhat.com
Thu Jan 16 10:11:07 UTC 2014


Dne 15.1.2014 17:51, Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Dne 14.1.2014 21:41, Andrew Lutomirski napsal(a):
>>> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
>>> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
>>> new build.  Should I commit them to the master branch?  If so, I can
>>> imagine a couple of issues:
>>>
>>>  - A provenpackager could kick off a rebuild for whatever reason (e.g.
>>> dependency soname bump).  That will (I think) inadvertently include my
>>> changes.
>>>  - I need to think about whether to add a changelog entry or not.  If
>>> not, those changes might be included silently.  If yes, then I need to
>>> think about what to do about the revision number.
>>>
>>> The normal GIT approach would be to develop on another branch and to
>>> merge when I want to build a new revision (the Fedora equivalent of
>>> tagging a new release).  Should Fedora provide branches like
>>> master-devel, f20-devel, etc that store pending changes?
>>>
>>> Am I missing something really obvious here?
>>>
>>> --Andy
>> Actually I'd really love to see some possibility for private branches.
>> Now, it is possible to push whatever branch (take it literally) you have
>> in your local git repo into dist-git, but there is no way how to delete
>> it by myself.
>>
>> For example, I am using branches to keep my .spec file aligned with
>> upstream development and I'd like to share it with other maintainers.
>> But this .spec file should never build in Rawhide unless it is approved
>> by FESCo.
>>
>> Could you please add support for private branches? I.e. the branch which
>> starts by private- prefix could be pushed and deleted as well, non ff
>> commit should be allowed. Actually, better would be if only master, fxx
>> and elx are protected and others are unrestricted, but I am probably
>> asking too much.
> For private branches I'd rather see something along fas/branch.
>
> With the '/' separator you can glob refspecs, and using your fas as a
> prefix could enable automatic acls with less pain on the
> infrastructure side (eg. allow anyone to manage and own private
> branches at will).
>
> Dridi

Yes, that is a good idea, why not? Anything would help :)


Vít



More information about the devel mailing list