[PATCH] wwwdocs: document scripts to access personal and vendor spaces

Jonathan Wakely jwakely@redhat.com
Fri Jan 24 16:43:00 GMT 2020

On 24/01/20 13:55 +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>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 
>>>>>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).
>>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.

OK, I've pushed the attached patch.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: patch.txt
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/attachments/20200124/92a3a9a4/attachment.bin>

More information about the Gcc mailing list