> IMO you should ask Ryan to set up direct push access for > your working branches Cool, will do. Does Ryan read this list?
I'm not sure how MediaWiki should work, but maybe Gerrit should be set up like this by default? Either with a master + a production branch, or even just a master. Somewhere where only one branch needs review, and any other branches can be created and pushed at will, and review isn't needed until a merge to the master or production branch happens. > Why did you merge master into your branch, rather than merging your > branch into master? That doesn't make much sense to me. Hmm, maybe I did this wrong then. Is this something I should never do with git at all, or just with this Gerrit workflow? Isn't merging from master into my branches part of a regular workflow? Shouldn't I be merging in the code from master all the time as I work? Thanks Roan! We'll get this ironed out fo sho. -otto On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:31 AM, Roan Kattouw wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Andrew Otto <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2. Do I need to rebase every time I push for review? >> >> I don't quite understand what is going on here. I've installed git-review >> and am using this to push to git. It does a rebase by default. I'm not >> sure if I should be turning that off or not. Rebases seem like a bad idea >> unless you really need to do them. I think git-review is doing a rebase by >> default so it can squash all of your local commits into one big review >> commit before pushing. Yuck! This would surely mean fewer commits to review >> in Gerrit, but it destroys real the history. It is making git work more >> like subversion, where you just work locally until everything is good and >> then have one big commit. I should be able to commit often and be able to >> share my commits with other developers before having everything reviewed. >> > Yes, you need to rebase before you push. The rebase does not exist to > squash multiple commits into one, but to ensure that your commit can > be merged cleanly. This fits the gated trunk model, but it looks like > you don't necessarily want to gate your working branch at all, just > your master. IMO you should ask Ryan to set up direct push access for > your working branches, so you can just git push into them directly, > bypassing review. You can then merge your branch into master, and > submit that merge commit for review. > > >> 3. How does Gerrit handle merges? Do all merge commits need to be >> re-approved? >> > Yes. > >> 4. What should I do in the following situation? >> >> I have a branch I recently made from master. I've made some changes and >> pushed them to gerrit. My changes have been approved. Now I want to sync >> master into my branch. I do >> >> git merge master >> > Why did you merge master into your branch, rather than merging your > branch into master? That doesn't make much sense to me. > >> Then resolve any conflicts and commit. How should I push these changes? >> The commits that make up the merge have already been approved in gerrit on >> the master branch. Do I need to push for review using git-review? They've >> already been approved, so I would think not. But gerrit will currently not >> allow me to push without using git-review (is that because the commits need >> a Change-Id?). >> > Yes, you need to submit the merge commit for review. If some commits > don't have a Change-Id, git-review can't submit them, but I don't see > how that could be the case. You said the commits were already approved > in gerrit, *and* they don't have a Change-Id? Those things can't both > be true. > >> Since gerrit doesn't let me do a regular git push to push my master merge to >> the remote branch I am tracking, I do git-review. > Perhaps you should ask for regular pushes to be allowed if you're not > using the review workflow for that branch, see also above. > >> This does rebase by default, so for some reason I am stuck having to >> resolve every single commit that was made to master in order to get the >> merge to push. This takes quite a while, but I did it, and once the >> interactive rebase was finished I was able to git-review to push the merge >> from master. >> >> Great. Now I that my branch is in sync with master again, I want to merge >> it into master. >> >> git checkout master >> git merge my_branch >> >> All good. Then what? Since I can't do just 'git push', I try git-review >> again. The same thing happens. I have to run through the whole interactive >> rebase routine and resolve each of my commits from my_branch manually. I do >> that, then run 'git-review' again. Now I get this error message: >> >> remote: Hint: A potential Change-Id was found, but it was not in the footer >> of the commit message. >> To ssh://[email protected]:29418/analytics/reportcard.git >> ! [remote rejected] HEAD -> refs/for/master/master (missing Change-Id in >> commit message) >> error: failed to push some refs to >> 'ssh://[email protected]:29418/analytics/reportcard.git' >> >> Each of the commits I merged from my_branch come with their own Change-Id in >> the commit messages. But these commits are now merge commits (I think?), so >> they have information about the merge and any conflicts in the commit >> message below the original Change-Id. I think this is confusing Gerrit, >> because it doesn't see the Change-Id in the footer. >> > There is a bug in git that causes merge commits to not automatically > get Change-IDs. After generating a merge commit, you need to run git > commit --amend , then save without changing anything. That makes sure > the commit-msg hook is run and the Change-ID is appended. > > Roan > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
