On 24/01/2020 12:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/01/20 11:48 +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 24/01/2020 11:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/01/20 16:23 +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 21/01/2020 18:58, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
This patch documents some of the scripts that I've
published for managing the personal and vendor spaces on
the server. It also covers some of the other features
that those scripts enable, so that it's all in one place.
This is a complete rewrite of the material I had written
previously since before we did not have these scripts to
make use of.
I've not filled in the documentation for gcc-descr and
gcc-undescr, Jakub has agreed to provide that at a later
date.
R.
I've pushed this. I think it's better to have this in than
nothing at all. We can iterate on it as required.
I've pushed the attached fix for a couple of typos.
Do we want to repeat the "do not push changes to that space without
their express permission" for user branches? There are no access
checks to prevent it, but I hsouldn't be changing things in your
branches without your permission.
Absolutely. I guess I took this as read in the personal spaces.
If we don't document it, somebody will get it wrong :-)
Maybe like so, after the "To create a new personal branch" paragraph:
<p><em>Personal spaces are controlled by the individual user. Do not push
changes to somebody else's space without their express permission.</em>
(Rather than pushing to somebody else's personal branch, consider pushing
to your own personal branch and having collaborators pull from there).
</p>
Is the parenthesis going into too much detail, too early? This page
doesn't describe how to pull from somebody else's personal branch (and
arguably that would be too much info here anyway, but it might make
sense for https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitCookbook instead).
I think the 'pull' model is probably preferable for personal spaces.
At some point we might need to enforce something like that anyway.
So maybe just the part in <em>.
Finally, why does this qualify it as "If you have multiple clones"?
<p>If you have multiple clones of the gcc repository you can fetch
updates from your personal space by running
<code>git fetch me</code>
Isn't that the right command even if you only have one clone?
Well, if you only have one clone, why would you need to pull
branches from upstream that you pushed yourself?
Good point.
In fact, why would you even need to push them in that case,
unless it's for backup? ... and if
So other people can see your work in progress (without the overhead of
setting up a devel/* branch for a short-lived topic branch).
you're restoring your backup, then that's a new clone. You
might temporally have only only one clone, but across all time
you have more than one.
Right. I was stuck in small-minded, non-distributed thinking :-)
It's pedantry, though, so feel free to re-word it.
How about:
"You can fetch updates from your personal space into some other clone
of the repository (e.g. on a machine used for testing) by running:"
Yes, that's fine.