The git usage looks off to me. It would be better to avoid deleting branches and using noises merge commits.
Assume the "upstream" remote is ASF repo Assume "prj" remote is my remote Assume your code is not in master on your fork. Submission: git push prj master_my_branch open a PR on git hub (Fill out the template - we need one) ... Your PR comes into master: - this can be as is:no committer modification or with modification by the committer. Reintegration Put your current work on top of latest master (with your contribution + others) git checkout master git fetch upstream git pull upstream master (it should only be a fast forward not merge commits) OR git reset --hard upstream/master (no question what you get) git checkout master_my_branch (optionally if PR codes was modified by committer - to keep your work safe - git -b checkout master_my_branch_PR && git checkout master_my_branch) (optionally if PR codes was modified by committer git reset --hard <SHAL is the parent of master_my_branch started>) git rebase master In reality if the PR was taken as is (no committer modification) the rebase on master will only add others changes under your WIP. Alternate for backporting - Cherry pick your work back to your fork. This workflow ensures your branch is equal in format to the upstream and no others changes. - This may be more stable. git checkout master git fetch upstream git pull upstream master OR git reset --hard upstream/master (no question what you get) git checkout master_my_branch git -b checkout master_my_branch_PR && git checkout master_my_branch git reset --hard <SHAL is the parent of master_my_branch started> git log master --oneline ^C git cherry-pick <shal befor the PR commits> ..<last shal> add -e to change the commit message i.e add [BACKPORT] David -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Ángel Herranz [mailto:mig...@midokura.com.INVALID] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 8:49 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Wrapping up the Workflow document Hi Nathan, I reviewed the document and added some inlines comments (not sure if they are not recommended for use though). I haven't edited/added any text though, but I will be glad to help if needed. Cheers, Miguel On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:29 PM Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The proposed Workflow document (see [1]) has a substantial amount of > good information in it. > > It is not yet 100% percent complete: > (1) There are several "REVISIT" notes throughout. > (2) A few sections toward the end aren't written yet. > > However, by the 80-20 rule, I think the most important parts have been > written, even if some things are rough around the edges. > > I have had a LOT of overtime at my $dayjob lately, which has kept me > from working much on NuttX. However, I don't want to let the workflow > fall by the wayside. I would like to get it wrapped up so we can vote > on it soon. > > Please, could we have some willing volunteers proofread the document, > fix some of the "REVISIT" parts, and help push this document that last > little bit to get it into a "shippable" state? > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Code+Contribution+Workflow+--+Brennan+Ashton > ) > > Thanks, > Nathan >
