[Starlingx-discuss] stx-nova repo changes for upstream tracking
I just finished resetting the stx-nova repo [0] to track upstream nova: * the old master branch is now stx/old-master for reference * master branch is a snapshot of upstream master as of about 30 min ago * stable/stein branch is a snapshot of upstream stable/stein as of about 30 min ago * stx/stein is our working copy of stable/stein and where anything we backport should land. Big Note: I am thinking about keeping a policy of periodically rebasing stx/stein on stable/stein to keep a clear history as we move forward, making it easier to see what we have added. That possibly means doing it next week when the final stein tag is added. Thoughts? Force pushes can be inconvenient for developers but I am thinking the price may be worth the return on a wider scale. dt [0] https://github.com/starlingx-staging/stx-nova -- Dean Troyer dtroyer@gmail.com
On 4/5/2019 10:19 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
Big Note: I am thinking about keeping a policy of periodically rebasing stx/stein on stable/stein to keep a clear history as we move forward, making it easier to see what we have added. That possibly means doing it next week when the final stein tag is added. Thoughts? Force pushes can be inconvenient for developers but I am thinking the price may be worth the return on a wider scale.
I like the idea of rebasing periodically to keep our changes "on top". Rather than force-pushing, it might make sense to create a new branch for each of these rebases. That way we don't need to rewrite history. Chris
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 3:35 PM Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com> wrote:
I like the idea of rebasing periodically to keep our changes "on top".
Rather than force-pushing, it might make sense to create a new branch for each of these rebases. That way we don't need to rewrite history.
We could do that, it would mean updating manifest files or whatever else points to the right branch each time and be one more thing to track for debugging. I had considered renaming the prior stx/stein branch and creating a new one, the effect is the same as a force push but it preserves that bit of history. I don't have much invested in either option, but I lean toward always building from stx/stein. Opinions from those who this would affect more directly? dt -- Dean Troyer dtroyer@gmail.com
I'm ok with new branches per rebase. We're not rebasing that often so I think it's manageable. Gerry -----Original Message----- From: Dean Troyer [mailto:dtroyer@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 9:12 AM To: starlingx Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] stx-nova repo changes for upstream tracking On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 3:35 PM Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com> wrote:
I like the idea of rebasing periodically to keep our changes "on top".
Rather than force-pushing, it might make sense to create a new branch for each of these rebases. That way we don't need to rewrite history.
We could do that, it would mean updating manifest files or whatever else points to the right branch each time and be one more thing to track for debugging. I had considered renaming the prior stx/stein branch and creating a new one, the effect is the same as a force push but it preserves that bit of history. I don't have much invested in either option, but I lean toward always building from stx/stein. Opinions from those who this would affect more directly? dt -- Dean Troyer dtroyer@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Starlingx-discuss mailing list Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
participants (3)
-
Chris Friesen
-
Dean Troyer
-
Kopec, Gerald (Gerry)