You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com> on 2013/11/26 22:40:53 UTC
Big mess in 2.0
Hello,
I'm restoring my Mina development environment after my disk crash.
I noticed we now have two branches for 2.0, the 2.0 and 2.0.8.
It seems most of the updates has been done in 2.0.
So I think we shoud clean up this situation.
I will propose:
- merge 2.0.8 into 2.0
- put 2.0.8 in read only: don't know if Infra can do it, but I don't
like deleting something on the server
WDYT ?
Jeff
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com>.
I have not more the 2.0.8 branch on my workstation so if you have it, can
you do it.
Jeff
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Julien Vermillard
<jv...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I suppose you just tag the same commit hash and drop the branch.
> Le 28 nov. 2013 23:14, "Jeff MAURY" <je...@jeffmaury.com> a écrit :
>
> > Well branch has been delete (which I don't like).
> > Can you rename a branch to be a tag with git ?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
> > > suggest the following:
> > >
> > > Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
> > > should be immutable.
> > > or
> > > Rename it to xxx_READ_ONLY
> > >
> > > In each case it would probably be worthwhile to add a README file to
> > > explain the rationale (and point to the mail thread).
> > >
> > >
> > > On 27 November 2013 12:49, Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com> wrote:
> > > > Done
> > > >
> > > > Jeff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
> > elecharny@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Le 11/27/13 1:29 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> > > >> > Hello,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've rebased 2.0.8 into 2.0 and pushed it to the server.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ok, thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >> > Still have to either delete 2.0.8 branch or put it read only (it
> is
> > > >> > possible to do it with a hook but it seems it is not possible to
> > push
> > > a
> > > >> > hook)
> > > >>
> > > >> Just delete it. It's useless.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Cordialement,
> > > >> Emmanuel Lécharny
> > > >> www.iktek.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jeff MAURY
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by
> actually
> > > > working and scaling.
> > > > - Bjarne Stroustrup
> > > >
> > > > http://www.jeffmaury.com
> > > > http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
> > > > http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff MAURY
> >
> >
> > "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
> > working and scaling.
> > - Bjarne Stroustrup
> >
> > http://www.jeffmaury.com
> > http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
> > http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
> >
>
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Julien Vermillard <jv...@gmail.com>.
I suppose you just tag the same commit hash and drop the branch.
Le 28 nov. 2013 23:14, "Jeff MAURY" <je...@jeffmaury.com> a écrit :
> Well branch has been delete (which I don't like).
> Can you rename a branch to be a tag with git ?
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
> > suggest the following:
> >
> > Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
> > should be immutable.
> > or
> > Rename it to xxx_READ_ONLY
> >
> > In each case it would probably be worthwhile to add a README file to
> > explain the rationale (and point to the mail thread).
> >
> >
> > On 27 November 2013 12:49, Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com> wrote:
> > > Done
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <
> elecharny@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Le 11/27/13 1:29 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> > >> > Hello,
> > >> >
> > >> > I've rebased 2.0.8 into 2.0 and pushed it to the server.
> > >>
> > >> Ok, thanks.
> > >>
> > >> > Still have to either delete 2.0.8 branch or put it read only (it is
> > >> > possible to do it with a hook but it seems it is not possible to
> push
> > a
> > >> > hook)
> > >>
> > >> Just delete it. It's useless.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Cordialement,
> > >> Emmanuel Lécharny
> > >> www.iktek.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeff MAURY
> > >
> > >
> > > "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
> > > working and scaling.
> > > - Bjarne Stroustrup
> > >
> > > http://www.jeffmaury.com
> > > http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
> > > http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff MAURY
>
>
> "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
> working and scaling.
> - Bjarne Stroustrup
>
> http://www.jeffmaury.com
> http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
> http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
>
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com>.
Well branch has been delete (which I don't like).
Can you rename a branch to be a tag with git ?
Jeff
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
> suggest the following:
>
> Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
> should be immutable.
> or
> Rename it to xxx_READ_ONLY
>
> In each case it would probably be worthwhile to add a README file to
> explain the rationale (and point to the mail thread).
>
>
> On 27 November 2013 12:49, Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com> wrote:
> > Done
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Le 11/27/13 1:29 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I've rebased 2.0.8 into 2.0 and pushed it to the server.
> >>
> >> Ok, thanks.
> >>
> >> > Still have to either delete 2.0.8 branch or put it read only (it is
> >> > possible to do it with a hook but it seems it is not possible to push
> a
> >> > hook)
> >>
> >> Just delete it. It's useless.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Cordialement,
> >> Emmanuel Lécharny
> >> www.iktek.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff MAURY
> >
> >
> > "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
> > working and scaling.
> > - Bjarne Stroustrup
> >
> > http://www.jeffmaury.com
> > http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
> > http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
>
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 12/4/13 5:41 PM, sebb a écrit :
> On 29 November 2013 03:03, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 11/28/13 10:27 PM, sebb a écrit :
>>> If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
>>> suggest the following:
>>>
>>> Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
>>> should be immutable.
>> Certainly not a tag. A tag is a released version.
> That is only a convention.
Yes, this is the MINA project's convention.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 November 2013 03:03, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 11/28/13 10:27 PM, sebb a écrit :
>> If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
>> suggest the following:
>>
>> Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
>> should be immutable.
>
> Certainly not a tag. A tag is a released version.
That is only a convention.
> I'd rather move the branch to a "deceased" sub-folder if necessary.
Branches are expected to be mutable.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com>.
+1
All we need now i to make sure commits won't be done anymore on 2.0.8. Now
that it's dead, we get it !!!
Jeff
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Le 11/29/13 7:34 AM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> > A sub-folder has no meaning because this is just a git branch is just a
> > virtual concept on top of sources. The problem was because of the double
> > existence of 2.0 and 2.0.8 branches.
>
> Too much time with SVN !
>
>
> Anyway, 2.0.8 is now dead, so... I don't see any value in ressucitating
> a branch which only contained 2 patches which have been applied on 2.0
> (thanks to you !)
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 11/29/13 7:34 AM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> A sub-folder has no meaning because this is just a git branch is just a
> virtual concept on top of sources. The problem was because of the double
> existence of 2.0 and 2.0.8 branches.
Too much time with SVN !
Anyway, 2.0.8 is now dead, so... I don't see any value in ressucitating
a branch which only contained 2 patches which have been applied on 2.0
(thanks to you !)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com>.
A sub-folder has no meaning because this is just a git branch is just a
virtual concept on top of sources. The problem was because of the double
existence of 2.0 and 2.0.8 branches.
Jeff
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Le 11/28/13 10:27 PM, sebb a écrit :
> > If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
> > suggest the following:
> >
> > Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
> > should be immutable.
>
> Certainly not a tag. A tag is a released version.
>
> I'd rather move the branch to a "deceased" sub-folder if necessary.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 11/28/13 10:27 PM, sebb a écrit :
> If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
> suggest the following:
>
> Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
> should be immutable.
Certainly not a tag. A tag is a released version.
I'd rather move the branch to a "deceased" sub-folder if necessary.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
If it should become necessary to mark a branch read-only, I would
suggest the following:
Rename it as a tag; that's effectively what it has become - tags
should be immutable.
or
Rename it to xxx_READ_ONLY
In each case it would probably be worthwhile to add a README file to
explain the rationale (and point to the mail thread).
On 27 November 2013 12:49, Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com> wrote:
> Done
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Le 11/27/13 1:29 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I've rebased 2.0.8 into 2.0 and pushed it to the server.
>>
>> Ok, thanks.
>>
>> > Still have to either delete 2.0.8 branch or put it read only (it is
>> > possible to do it with a hook but it seems it is not possible to push a
>> > hook)
>>
>> Just delete it. It's useless.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Cordialement,
>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> www.iktek.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff MAURY
>
>
> "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
> working and scaling.
> - Bjarne Stroustrup
>
> http://www.jeffmaury.com
> http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
> http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com>.
Done
Jeff
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Le 11/27/13 1:29 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've rebased 2.0.8 into 2.0 and pushed it to the server.
>
> Ok, thanks.
>
> > Still have to either delete 2.0.8 branch or put it read only (it is
> > possible to do it with a hook but it seems it is not possible to push a
> > hook)
>
> Just delete it. It's useless.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 11/27/13 1:29 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I've rebased 2.0.8 into 2.0 and pushed it to the server.
Ok, thanks.
> Still have to either delete 2.0.8 branch or put it read only (it is
> possible to do it with a hook but it seems it is not possible to push a
> hook)
Just delete it. It's useless.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com>.
Hello,
I've rebased 2.0.8 into 2.0 and pushed it to the server.
Still have to either delete 2.0.8 branch or put it read only (it is
possible to do it with a hook but it seems it is not possible to push a
hook)
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Le 11/26/13 11:08 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> > I want to keep it because I don't like deleting stuff on the server that
> > may be pushed somewhere else. That's why I prefer to keep it but in read
> > only to make sure the current situation won't happen anymore.
> > But if we cannot have a read only mode, then delete it.
>
> AFAICT, deleting the branch when merged should keep the track of the
> chanegs made on it before its delition, no ?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 11/26/13 11:08 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> I want to keep it because I don't like deleting stuff on the server that
> may be pushed somewhere else. That's why I prefer to keep it but in read
> only to make sure the current situation won't happen anymore.
> But if we cannot have a read only mode, then delete it.
AFAICT, deleting the branch when merged should keep the track of the
chanegs made on it before its delition, no ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Jeff MAURY <je...@jeffmaury.com>.
I want to keep it because I don't like deleting stuff on the server that
may be pushed somewhere else. That's why I prefer to keep it but in read
only to make sure the current situation won't happen anymore.
But if we cannot have a read only mode, then delete it.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Le 11/26/13 10:40 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm restoring my Mina development environment after my disk crash.
> > I noticed we now have two branches for 2.0, the 2.0 and 2.0.8.
> > It seems most of the updates has been done in 2.0.
> > So I think we shoud clean up this situation.
> > I will propose:
> >
> > - merge 2.0.8 into 2.0
>
> +1
> > - put 2.0.8 in read only: don't know if Infra can do it, but I don't
> > like deleting something on the server
>
> 2.0.8 is useless. Once it gets merged into 2.0, why should we keep it ?
> All in all, we can also just apply the few modifications done on 2.0.8
> (currently, only 2)
>
> We also need to get a 2.0.8 release cut pretty soon, as a few critical
> bugs have been fixed in this branch.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>
--
Jeff MAURY
"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually
working and scaling.
- Bjarne Stroustrup
http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury
Re: Big mess in 2.0
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 11/26/13 10:40 PM, Jeff MAURY a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I'm restoring my Mina development environment after my disk crash.
> I noticed we now have two branches for 2.0, the 2.0 and 2.0.8.
> It seems most of the updates has been done in 2.0.
> So I think we shoud clean up this situation.
> I will propose:
>
> - merge 2.0.8 into 2.0
+1
> - put 2.0.8 in read only: don't know if Infra can do it, but I don't
> like deleting something on the server
2.0.8 is useless. Once it gets merged into 2.0, why should we keep it ?
All in all, we can also just apply the few modifications done on 2.0.8
(currently, only 2)
We also need to get a 2.0.8 release cut pretty soon, as a few critical
bugs have been fixed in this branch.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com