[rspec-users] rspec + github == !submodules
tastapod at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 03:43:06 EDT 2008
With mercurial I nearly did a similar thing, working on my own but
committing from two different machines. Luckily mercurial gave me a warning
that allowed me to make sense of what I was doing. Not sure how this works
with git but here goes.
1. I push from laptop1 to my central server. All is good.
2. I push from laptop2 to my central server. Mercurial doesn't allow this
and warns me that the remote repo will have two heads (which is allowed but
probably not what I want). I can override this with --force.
3. Oh silly sod - of course I committed from the other machine.
4. I pull from the central server, merge locally and commit, creating a new
single head representing the merge
5. I then push the result, meaning there is only ever a single
head/tip/edge/whatever in the repository.
6. I realise that this is what I always do with subversion anyway - update,
merge, [run tests], commit.
It seems git doesn't protect you from yourself like hg does - which is
understandable, it's designed for and used by scarier people!
Could a pull-merge-commit before pushing have avoided this, and should we
make that our endorsed way of working? Or am I missing something else about
how dscm works?
On 18/04/2008, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jonathan Leighton
> <j at jonathanleighton.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 08:49 -0400, David Chelimsky wrote:
> > > This all make sense?
> > Ok, I have to confess I haven't been paying that much attention to the
> > way things are or were set out on github, so let me see if I'm fully
> > understanding what you're saying...
> > Was "rspec" previously split up into several repositories, with a
> > "parent" repository which contained the other repositories as
> > submodules? So you are essentially saying that it is a bad idea to
> > one single project into a number of pieces and manage that project
> > through submodules? However, you do consider submodules to be a good
> > idea if you are using and wish to track third-party upstream code, for
> > example plugins in a Rails project?
> RSpec was split into four repos...and it still is actually. But
> originally the rspec-dev project was a superproject that included the
> other three as submodules.
> The problem with submodules is if two people are making changes to the
> submodules at the same time.
> Let's say I work on the rspec submodule, and my final commit is
> abc123. You work on the rspec submodule as well and your final commit
> is def456. The superproject tracks the head of each submodule,
> meaning we each need to commit a reference to the heads of rspec. At
> some point you pull from my...and the incoming commits say that the
> head is abc123, but you say def456. merge conflict. Not a big deal,
> since you have all the latest code, so you can safely point it at
> def456. But it's a bit of a hassle because you have to do that every
> single time. I don't actually know what all the potential problems
> are, but beyond just the hassle, it seems very easy for someone to
> make a mistake, causing a lot of headaches.
> We still have stuff split up, but we realized there's no reason for
> the rspec-dev repo to track the others as submodules. We wrote a rake
> task to check out all the other repos beneath the rspec-dev dir. It's
> basically the exact same setup, but without the submodule tracking.
> And it avoids any problems with submodules, because it's all just
> standard git push/pull/merge stuff.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users