Bug#979188: RFS: git-subrepo/0.4.3-1 [ITP] -- Alternative to git-submodule(1) and git-subtree(1)
Hi Daniel,
Dne 06.05.2024 (pon) ob 15:02 +0200 je Daniel Gröber napisal(a):
>
> To be clear force-push should never ever be done when collaborating on the
> branche(s) with multiple people, except in the most dire of circumstances
> and only if everyone involved is notified appropriately. I'll be happy to
> give you commit rights on the repo as soon as you show you've internalised
> this :)
>
I am aware that force-push on shared branches causes a mess for all other branch
users. For that reason i'd do initial work on my forked repo to propose changes and use force-push exclusively on my fork to reset its state to what is already in the collab-repo as needed.
> I thought we agreed on using plain gbp for now?
>
Exactly, i temporarily used my old dgitized fork, until a new collab-maint-repo
is ready. I am sorry, if i did not explain mysef enough regarding that, while
working on bash-completion issue.
Now my dgitized repo is unforked and renamed to git-subrepo_dgit and a new fork
is created: https://salsa.debian.org/spog/git-subrepo
Then i also prepared a fresh update:
git clone git@salsa.debian.org:spog/git-subrepo.git
cd git-subrepo/
git remote -v
git remote add upstream https://github.com/ingydotnet/git-subrepo.git
git remote -v
git fetch upstream
gbp import-ref -u 0.4.6
gbp dch --snapshot --auto debian/
vim debian/changelog
git diff
gbp buildpackage --git-ignore-new
gbp dch --release --auto
git diff
git commit -m"Release 0.4.6-1" debian/changelog
gbp buildpackage
git push
git switch upstream
git pull upstream master
git log
git reset --hard HEAD~1
git log
git push --tags origin debian/sid upstream
git switch debian/sid
This is now the updated state pushed into my fork without additional changes
regarding bash-completion.
>
> 73a01 | | * upstream origin/upstream docs: Replace 404$ Edwin Kofler 5M
> | |/
> 110b9 | * 0.4.6 Release 0.4.6 Austin Morgan 1Y
>
> The upstream branch is ahead of the 0.4.6 tag. Why? Seems to me you meddled
> with the upstream branch by hand instead of letting the tooling take care
> of it. Technicaly not a problem just makes me wonder what you're doing.
>
I wonder why the tool didn't care about it again (see above). Perhaps because
the upstream branch has not been checked out initially (oh, i should've probably
called gbp clone instead of git clone - my bad).
I'll prepare another change regarding bash-completion later. I saw a few
examples using "/usr/share" from "/usr/bin" (i.e. dcut, dput, lintian, ...).
Anyway, thanks for the thorough review,
--Samo
Reply to: