From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Wolf Subject: Re: Workflow for templates? Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:50:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20121106195045.GD28437@raven.wolf.lan> References: <20121025211522.GA28437@raven.wolf.lan> <3190de06-2eaf-4a39-91aa-9cc34c20fc8e@zcs> <20121031104403.GC28437@raven.wolf.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 06 21:00:30 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TVpK1-0000cV-7W for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:00:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751556Ab2KFUAN (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:00:13 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:42145 "EHLO mail.inka.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751141Ab2KFUAM (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:00:12 -0500 Received: from raven.inka.de (uucp@[127.0.0.1]) by mail.inka.de with uucp (rmailwrap 0.5) id 1TVpJi-00071d-C8; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:00:10 +0100 Received: by raven.inka.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C78A760DF; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:50:45 +0100 (CET) Mail-Followup-To: Josef Wolf , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121031104403.GC28437@raven.wolf.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: No suggestions on this one? On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:44:04AM +0100, Josef Wolf wrote: > I am somewhat unsure whether it would work this way. After all, there seems to > be an unbreakable rule with git: never rebase published branches. > > Thus, once I have published my work to other people who also need to work on > the same localizations as I do, I have no longer the option of rebasing to get > rid of the localizations and put the generic template stuff for upstream. > > I guess, my concern is because I have not yet fully understood the problems of > rebasing, and how to recover from them. > > Maybe I should try to explain the problem in terms of repository > hierarchy. Let's assume, there is this hierarchy of repositories: > > upstream: central repository, containing the generic template > > foo-site: repository for site foo. Here we have localizations for a specific > administrative entity named foo (say, google). > This is where clones for production are made from, and production > boxes pull from here to be kept up-to-date. > > foo-prodA: A clone of foo-site, put in production and pulling from a specific > branch on foo-site to receive released, blessed updates. > foo-prodB: Similar to foo-prodA, but on another box. > > foo-devA: A clone of foo-site to make development, releases, and whatever for > foo. > foo-devB: One more clone of foo-site, Developer B is working here. > > Then, we might have more administrative entities: bar-site, bar-prodA, > bar-prodB, bar-devA, bar-devB, for example. This might be Microsoft, for > example. > > Further, foo-devA might be the same person as bar-devA. > > So when foo-devA pulls from foo-devB, then foo-devB will create problems when > he rebases after that pull. > > I think I have some kind of misunderstanding here, but I just can't figure > what it is. > > > Maybe I should try to explain the problem in yet other words: > > What I am trying to achieve, is to extend the workflow from development to > deployment across multiple administrative entities. As a picture: > > upstream (templates only). > ^ > | > v > development (configured, might contain experimental changes) > ^ > | > v > deployment (configured) > > This workflow should not stop at administrative borders. Just replace foo by > google and bar by Microsoft to get an idea of what I am trying to achieve. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html