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 g...@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
