[rspec-users] rspec + github == !submodules

Dan North 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?

Cheers,
Dan


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
> split
> >  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.
>
>
> Pat
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080418/03b4f1c3/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the rspec-users mailing list