[Kde-scm-interest] Re: Request regarding Git branches

[Torgny Nyblom]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:21:17 +0100
Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Ian Monroe <ian at monroe.nu> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:55, Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Torgny Nyblom <kde at nyblom.org> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:39:52 +0100
> >>> Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hey folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a small request regarding git.kde.org, it resulted from a
> >>>> discussion with Chani:
> >>>>
> >>>> Problem is, we cannot currently force-push on branches, nor can we
> >>>> delete them. I can understand that this is done for safety reasons,
> >>>> but it does not fit everyone's work flow. E.g. I tend to rebase a lot,
> >>>> and that does not work without force pushing.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, Chani and I came up with this idea: We could allow force-pushing
> >>>> and deleting on branches (shares branches need communication anyway),
> >>>> but we could disallow it for master. This way, not much harm can be
> >>>> done, but it allows for a more flexible work flow.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> It would have to be a per branch setting as for instance KDE 4.7 will probably be in a lot of git branches and quite some harm can be done with force push/branch deletion there.
> >>
> >> My view is this: If you share a branch with others, you *need* to
> >> communicate anyway. I you just rebase it, of course that will do harm.
> >>
> >> So you don't rebase on branches that you want for cooperation, simple
> >> as that. I think that a "per branch" setting would cause a lot of
> >> work...
> >
> > Rebasing a 4.7 branch over master would be a horrible thing to have
> > happen. So it really can't be allowed for version branches.
> 
> That I can agree with. However, version branches are not of direct
> importance to every developer. Ideally, some Git Ninja should watch
> over them, and maybe do the merges, or revert things.
> 
> Personally I work on feature branches, and without force-pushing, the
> branches are entirely useless to me. You could argue that I should
> simply use a public clone and do there whatever I want. But then, what
> are the branches good for? De facto, they are currently being used for
> doing features, and not only release management.

Yes and all of this would be covered with "per branch" settings.
How this is implemented is another thing, it could be "branches that match regexp" and rules foo and other rules bar.


/Regards
Torgny