[Bash-completion-devel] [Bash-completion-commits] [SCM] bash-completion branch, master, updated. 0f2656669fbdf627a3ddf11bdb72e3ec9cef68fd

[Ville Skyttä]

On Tuesday 31 March 2009, David Paleino wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:50:53 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Monday 30 March 2009, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> > > Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> > > > The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
> > > > commit 0924d059c6c845069b10482882c821088ccaeefa
> > > > Merge: 91daa8de58a6e88d5a4b55621e2e7d5e732c65ea
> > > > dc88329e8eea8424f2e1dc7efc50a80e240708c4 Author: Guillaume Rousse
> > > > <guillomovitch at zarb.org>
> > > > Date:   Mon Mar 30 22:02:55 2009 +0200
> > > >
> > > >     Merge branch 'master' into guillomovitch
> > >
> > > This seems to be a commit related to my own local branch, I don't
> > > understand why it does generate a mail here... I just hop I don't screw
> > > up anything in master branch.
> >
> > Happened to me too once, I don't claim to understand it either but it
> > didn't seem to have any bad effects.  The web UI doesn't show any changes
> > the usual way either, just "Simple merge", just as it did for me as well.
>
> But "git log" is a mess, and cherry-picking isn't easy.
>
> What are you guys using?

Plain git CLI.

> What's your development workflow?

git pull -u, hack something, test, commit locally, push.  Sometimes there are 
longish time periods between these steps, sometimes commit amending, rebasing 
etc are involved as well.

> There shouldn't be any merges in master.
>
> So log messages like:
>
> Merge branch 'master' of
> git+ssh://scop-guest@git.debian.org/git/bash-completion/bash-completion
>
> should'nt really exist, sorry :)

I think it occurs in this scenario:

1) git pull -u --> everything up to date now
2) git commit --> commit locally, no push
3) Meanwhile, someone else commits something to the origin branch
4) git push

(There might be another "git pull -u" between 3) and 4), and the merge message 
might come from that.)

> > I don't know, but the way I do it is that I clean up my commits locally
> > before pushing them using git commit --amend.  For example:
> >
> > # hack bash_completion
> > git add bash_completion
> > git commit
> >
> > # hack bash_completion more, related to the previous commit
> > git add bash_completion
> > git commit --amend # then edit the commit message if appropriate
> >
> > The result of the above is a clean single local commit.
>
> Right.
> You do this in master?

Yes, in my local clone of it.

> After this, do you do a simple push?

Yes.

> I'd like to have a clean log, so as in future we could have some
> automagical tool generating a changelog from "git log" (as git-dch now does
> for debian/changelog)

But if done properly, the above amend procedure will create a clean log (only 
one commit entry).  When not done properly, it'll create a mess which is now 
visible in top of master's log, thanks to yours truly.  OTOH, I'm not sure if 
amending works too nicely or at all if the commit one wishes to amend is not 
the latest one (there's the -c/-C option to commit but I'm not sure if I've 
ever used it).