1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
|
#
# git-ffqrebase start [BASE]
# # records previous HEAD so it can be overwritten
# # records base for future git-ffqrebase
# git-ffqrebase set-base BASE
# git-ffqrebase <git-rebase options>
# git-ffqrebase finish
# git-ffqrebase status [BRANCH]
#
# refs/ffqrebase-prev/BRANCH BRANCH may be refs/...; if not it means
# refs/ffqrebase-base/BRANCH refs/heads/BRANCH
# zero, one, or both of these may exist
#
# git-debrebase without start, if already started, is willing
# to strip pseudomerges provided that they overwrite exactly
# the previous HEAD
# xxxx is this right ? what matters is have we pushed
# I think in fact the right answer is:
# git-debrebase always strips out pseudomerges from its branch
# a pseudomerge is put in at the time we want to push
# at that time, we make a pseudomerge of the remote tracking
# branch (if raw git) or the dgit view (if dgit)
# for raw git git-ffqrebase, do want preciseley to record
# value of remote tracking branch or our branch, on start, so we
# overwrite only things we intend to
# the previous pseudomerge check for tags and remote branches ?
=========
special commit tags
overall format
[git-debrebase[ COMMIT-TYPE [ ARGS...]]: PROSE, MORE PROSE]
[git-debrebase: split mixed commit, debian part]
[git-debrebase: split mixed commit, upstream-part]
[git-debrebase: convert dgit import, debian changes]
[git-debrebase breakwater: convert dgit import, upstream changes]
[git-debrebase upstream-combine . PIECE[ PIECE...]: new upstream]
[git-debrebase breakwater: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, merge]
[git-debrebase: new upstream NEW-UPSTREAM-VERSION, changelog]
[git-debrebase: gbp2debrebase, drop patches]
[git-debrebase breakwater: declare upstream]
m{^\[git-debrebase (?:\w*-)?upstream combine \.((?: $extra_orig_namepart_re)+)\]}
Every breakwater commit must be a merge. In principle, this is not
necessary. After all, we are relying on the
[git-debrebase breakwater: ...]
commit message annotation in "declare" breakwater merges (which
do not have any upstream changes), to distinguish those breakwater
merges from ordinary pseudomerges (which we might just try to strip).
However, the user is going to be doing git-rebase a lot. We really
don't want them to rewrite a breakwater base commit. git-rebase
trips up on merges, so that is a useful safety catch.
=========
workflow
git-debrebase blah [implies start] strips pseudomerge(s)
commit / git-debrebase / etc.
dgit --damp-run push
hook: call git-debrebase prep-push adds new pm ? passes --overwrite ?
dgit push does not update remote
commit / git-debrebase / etc. strips pm(s) including last one
dgit push
hook: call git-debrebase prep-push adds new pm ? passes --overwrite ?
dgit push DOES update remote
commit / git-debrebase / etc. strips last pm, but arranges
that remade pm will incorporate it
Aha!
When we strip a pm, we need to maybe record it (or something) as the
new start point.
We do this if the pm is contained within the output branch.
Actually this is not special to PMs.
We need to record a new to-be-overwritten commit
merge-base( our branch tip, relevant remote )
If this is not a descendant of the relevant remote, then we are going
to have a problem when we push so issue a warning or fail.
How about
git-debrebase start or git-debrebase [continue]
with no recorded will-overwrite
putative will-overwrite is
one model:
our current tip
obviously it is safe to say we will overwrite this
we do not need to worry about whether this will
overwrite not-included changes in the remote
because either the will-overwrite is not
ff from the remote (in which case later failure,
see below); or the will-overwrite _is_ ff
from the remote ie our tip is later than the
remote and includes all of its changes
this model tends to keep ad-hoc commits made on our
tip branch before we did rebase start, in the
`interchange view' and also in the rebase stack.
other model:
merge-base( current remote, current tip )
it is safe to overwrite current tip, by the
argument above
it is always safe to rewind will-overwrite: all
that does is overwrite _less_ stuff
this is the earliest overwrite we can make that
will be pushable to the remote
in practical terms this can only be ff from the
current remote if it is equal to the current remote;
so what we are actually checking below is that our tip
is ff from the remote. This ought to be true before
the first of our rebases.
this model tends to rewind and rebase ad-hoc commits
made on our tip branch before we did rebase start,
this is better
in any case putative will-overwrite must be ff from remote.
Otherwise when we push it will not be ff, even though we have
made pseudomerge to overwrite will-overwrite. So if we spot
this, report an error.
with a recorded will-overwrite
we may need to advance will-overwrite, to allow us to generate
future pseudomerges that will be pushable
advancing will-overwrite is dangerous, since it might
effectively cancel the commits that will-ovewrite is advanced
over.
we advance it to merge-base( current remote, current tip )
if possible (see above), - ie to current remote, subject
to the condition that that is an ancestor of current tip
In each case we can strip pseudomerges freely, as needed. We do not
want to record what pseudomerges we strip, because whether we need to
keep them depends (only) on whether they have been pushed.
Is that actually true ? What if the user actually _wanted_ to keep
the pseudomerge despite not having pushed it ?
In that case we need to advance will-overwrite past it. We could
provide an explicit command to do this: it would advance
will-overwrite to the current tip (see rules above, which show that
this is OK). Or maybe to the last pseudomerge on the current tip,
so that the overall result will be series of pseudomerges.
========================================
import from gbp
inputs:
current HEAD (patches-unapplied),
this is going to be the base of the old breakwater
nominated upstream
checks:
HEAD:<upstream> = upstream:<upstream>
upstream..HEAD:<upstream> is empty (overrideable)
upstremm:debian is empty (overrideable)
procedure:
construct
run gbp pq import to generate pq branch
new breakwater is
old HEAD
commit to remove d/patches
breakwater pseudomerge with upstream
"rebase" of pq branch, each commit with d/patches stripped
what about dgit view branch ?
ideally, would make pseudomerge over dgit view
would need to check that dgit view is actually dgit view of
ond of our ancestors
failing that first push will need --overwrite
|
