2017-08-11 17:17 GMT+02:00 Christian Mauderer <l...@c-mauderer.de>: > Am 11.08.2017 um 12:14 schrieb Denis Obrezkov: > > 2017-08-11 11:53 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Huber > > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > > <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>>: > > > > On 11/08/17 11:44, Denis Obrezkov wrote: > > > > during our last meeting I didn't completely understand what to do > > with my commits. > > > > I have a set of commits made during the GSoC, they are, of > course, > > a bit chaotic. And the only last few commits make my code look > > better. > > So, I have a question: should I take all my commits, > > merge them into one big commit which changes the state of the > code > > from the initial to the current state? Or how should I clean my > > commit history? > > > > > > Ideally, there should be a patch set, that can be integrated into > > RTEMS with clean, self-contained, well described and easy to review > > patches. > > > > -- > > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 <tel:%2B49%2089%20189%2047%2041-16> > > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 <tel:%2B49%2089%20189%2047%2041-09> > > E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > > <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> > > PGP : Public key available on request. > > > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. > > > > > > Would it be appropriate to provide a set of patches, for example, > > for uart, clock and linkcmd related code, but without saving a commit > > history? > > I mean - to make a git reset --mixed and then make new commits with > > relatively > > clean code. > > > -- > > Regards, Denis Obrezkov > > > > Hello Denis, > > if I understood you correct, that would be the right form for your > patches. Just remember that you must never change a commit that is > already in the public master branch. So as long as you are in your own > development repository you can merge patches. Like Sebastian said, the > final patches should be compilable, readable and contain only one feature. > > It's good practice to do the rework of the patches on an extra branch or > rename the old branch so that it is still there for reference. > > Let me shortly describe my typical workflow. Maybe that makes it clear: > > If I implement a new feature, the first for me is to create a branch. If > you haven't done that, that is no problem. Then your branch is just your > local "master". > > I then make a lot of intermediate commits. Most of the time, the commit > message is just a rough note for myself, what I have done. Often it's > quite short. Something like "FIXME: Partial function xyz()." If you > would check out any of them, a lot wouldn't even compile. > > As soon as my feature is done, I create a new branch from that (so I can > keep the old for backup) and then I start to reorder and squash the > commits on this new branch together. My preferred method for that is a > "git rebase origin/master" (or on top of the commit before I branched > the feature). If something goes wrong during the rebase (which happens > more often then I would like) I just check out my old backup branch and > do the rebase again. > > Most of the time, I check the result of the rebase with a "git diff > my-old-branch" to make sure I didn't loose any changes. > > After the rebase, I have only very few (often only one or two) commits > left. All of these commits should be compilable. Every commit contains a > set of changes that belongs together. It's quite possible that it is > only one patch that adds exactly one driver without the whole history > how I developed that driver. That patch will be sent to the mailing list. > > That works quite well for a feature that is developed by a single > person. There are some other cases too: > > If you imported some files from other sources, you should check in these > sources unchanged in one commit (ideally don't add them to a Makefile or > similar so that the whole tree is still compilable) and then add your > changes and enable the compile process in a separate one. So it is easy > to see what has been changed and maybe update to a more recent version > of the original sources. > > If someone provided parts of the development, you should handle the > commits of that person in a way that the author is still clearly stated. > > I'm sure there are a lot of other edge cases. But these two are the most > common ones for me. > > Please don't hesitate to ask if something isn't clear. > > Kind regards > > Christian Mauderer >
Thanks, I am pretty familiar with the workflow, I just wanted to know, should I keep my commits history (may be there is such a requirement for GSoC)? -- Regards, Denis Obrezkov
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
