[Cython] Git workflow, branches, pull requests

[Vitja Makarov]

2011/5/6 Robert Bradshaw <robertwb at math.washington.edu>:
> I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
> be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
> Maybe even foo-queue, or a leading underscore if people like that.
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> <d.s.seljebotn at astro.uio.no> wrote:
>> Yes, that is the only time it happens.
>>
>> Do we agree on a) ask before you pull anything that is not in cython/* (ie
>> in private repos), b) document it in hackerguide?
>>
>> DS
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> Robert Bradshaw <robertwb at math.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml at behnel.de> wrote:
>>> > Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.05.2011 21:52: >> >> There was just a messup in
>>> git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got >> merged twice; all commits
>>> show up two times. > > What (I think) happened, was that Vitja pulled in
>>> Mark's changes into his > unreachable code removal branch, and they ended up
>>> in his pull request. I > guess I was assuming that git wouldn't care too
>>> much about branch > duplication, so I just accepted the pull request via the
>>> web interface. > Apparently, it did care. > > I tend to rebase my local
>>> change sets before pushing them, and I think it > makes sense to continue
>>> doing that. +1, I think for as-yet-unpublished changes, it makes the most
>>> sense to rebase, but for a longer-term branch, merging isn't as disruptive
>>> to the history (in fact is probably more reflective of what's going on) and
>>> is much better than duplication. To clarify, is this only a problem when we
>>> have A cloned from master B cloned from A (or from master and then pulls in
>>> A) A rebases A+B merged into master ? If this is the case, then we could
>>> simply make the rule that you should ask before hacking a clone atop
>>> anything but master. (Multiple people can share a repeatedly-rebased branch,
>>> right.) We could also us the underscore (or another) convention to mean
>>> "this branch is being used as a queue, puller beware." Surely other projects
>>> have dealt with this. - Robert


About my branch:

I've rebased it from upstream/master at home and made "forced push"
At work I pulled it back and rebased from origin, then I tried to
rebase if again from upstream/master

Guess I was wrong somewhere. So I've lost two latest commits
(generators related fix)
Sometimes it's much easy to branch from upstream and then make
cherry-pick (manual rebase).

-- 
vitja.