[Geany-devel] geany on github; why not?
techet at xxxxx
Tue Sep 6 12:32:14 UTC 2011
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 05:29, Lex Trotman <elextr at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
> Great job, thanks. Its going to take a while to inspect, but a couple
> of comments below (I'm only looking at the final rewrite-history
> Note I don't think we need perfection for its own sake, we need to be
> able to use the history to identify where regressions were introduced
> and fix them and to show attribution as well as SVN did. As far as I
> can see those requirements are met.
Yes, exactly, one could play with the repository almost infinitely to
make it look beautiful but then it makes no difference in reality.
>> 1. Some branch names should be renamed (e.g. Geany-0_19_1) because
>> they have the same name as tags and they are ambiguous when doing "git
>> checkout". Some naming scheme for stable branches should be invented.
> I notice there is some inconsistency in naming recent branches whilst
> naming for tags is consistent. In olden times branches were named like
> Geany-0.10.2 but only lately has it changed to underscores. Tags
> always used underscores. So maybe go back to using dots in branch
> names (and rename clashing ones).
There are actually three different naming schemes for stable branches now:
Now looking at it again, Geany-0_19_1 and Geany-0_19_2 aren't actually
different branches (similarly geany-0.10.1 and geany-0.10.2), there
are just two refs to the single branch:
To me the most logical and consistent naming scheme would look like
Geany-0_19_0 - release tag
Geany-0_19 - optional maintenance branch
Geany-0_19_1 - tag
Geany-0_19_2 - tag
That is - tags would always consist of three digits and branches of
two, the rest of the name would be identical.
Also the branch refs should be moved to the very end of the branch
(they are before the tag commit now) and the extra refs removed.
>> 2. There are some strange places in the history like this:
>> The commit says "create branch" but it appears the branch is actually
>> merged. Moreover, the merged branch appears not to contain any commit.
>> There are more examples like this in the history. Any idea what may
>> have caused this? Should the empty branches be deleted from the
>> history or kept as they are?
> This looks like attachment to me (sorry for the attachment, firewall
> prevents uploading to most sharing sites)
> It appears at the start of the branch which is right, how are you viewing it?
Ah, forget about this comment of mine. You are looking at the svn2git
repository and I was showing the final geany-rewrite-history
repository, that's why we see something different. However, in fact
it's just a different graphical representation of the same. The
straight line in my case isn't trunk but your branch and the side line
is trunk. I think the reason for not seeing the branch creation is
identical to the unstable branch - that your branch was periodically
merged, deleted and re-created but this isn't visible after the
More information about the Devel