* [PATCH v2 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-24 14:48 ` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-24 15:07 ` Denton Liu
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget @ 2020-06-24 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Schindelin
From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
As of "What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2020, #04; Mon, 22)", there is no
longer any `pu` branch, but a `seen` branch.
While we technically do not even need to update the manual pages, it
makes sense to update them because they clearly talk about branches in
git.git.
Please note that in two instances, this patch not only updates the
branch name, but also the description "(proposed updates)".
Where appropriate, quotes have been added for readability.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 ++--
Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 +++++-----
Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 ++++----
Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 ++--
Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 +++++-----
Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 ++++++++--------
Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-
7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
index 427274df4d..d85c9b5143 100644
--- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
+++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
@@ -1179,8 +1179,8 @@ look at the section below this one for some context.)
[[after-approval]]
=== After Review Approval
-The Git project has four integration branches: `pu`, `next`, `master`, and
-`maint`. Your change will be placed into `pu` fairly early on by the maintainer
+The Git project has four integration branches: `seen`, `next`, `master`, and
+`maint`. Your change will be placed into `seen` fairly early on by the maintainer
while it is still in the review process; from there, when it is ready for wider
testing, it will be merged into `next`. Plenty of early testers use `next` and
may report issues. Eventually, changes in `next` will make it to `master`,
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index ecf9438cf0..291b61e262 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ change is relevant to.
base your work on the tip of the topic.
* A new feature should be based on `master` in general. If the new
- feature depends on a topic that is in `pu`, but not in `master`,
+ feature depends on a topic that is in `seen`, but not in `master`,
base your work on the tip of that topic.
* Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in `master` should
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ change is relevant to.
into the series.
* In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics
- not in `master`, start working on `next` or `pu` privately and send
+ not in `master`, start working on `next` or `seen` privately and send
out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to
wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to `master`, and
rebase your work.
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ change is relevant to.
these parts should be based on their trees.
To find the tip of a topic branch, run `git log --first-parent
-master..pu` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
+master..seen` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
commit is the tip of the topic branch.
[[separate-commits]]
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ help you find out who they are.
and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
-from the list and queue it to `pu`, in order to make it easier for
+from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
their trees themselves.
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ their trees themselves.
master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
- tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of
+ tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
master).
* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
diff --git a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
index 5b1909fdf4..45b6d8e633 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
@@ -255,14 +255,14 @@ refspec.
* Using refspecs explicitly:
+
------------------------------------------------
-$ git fetch origin +pu:pu maint:tmp
+$ git fetch origin +seen:seen maint:tmp
------------------------------------------------
+
-This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `pu` and `tmp` in
+This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `seen` and `tmp` in
the local repository by fetching from the branches (respectively)
-`pu` and `maint` from the remote repository.
+`seen` and `maint` from the remote repository.
+
-The `pu` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,
+The `seen` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,
because it is prefixed with a plus sign; `tmp` will not be.
* Peek at a remote's branch, without configuring the remote in your local
diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
index 0a5c8b7d49..492e573856 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
@@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41 refs/tags/v0.99.1
7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e refs/tags/v0.99.3
c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441 refs/tags/v0.99.2
0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250 refs/tags/junio-gpg-pub
-$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc
+$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc
5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740 refs/heads/master
-c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061 refs/heads/pu
+c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061 refs/heads/seen
$ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
$ git ls-remote --tags korg v\*
d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a refs/tags/v0.99
diff --git a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt
index 1bd919f92b..faba2ef088 100644
--- a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt
+++ b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt
@@ -278,13 +278,13 @@ $ git am -3 -i -s ./+to-apply <4>
$ compile/test
$ git switch -c hold/linus && git am -3 -i -s ./+hold-linus <5>
$ git switch topic/one && git rebase master <6>
-$ git switch -C pu next <7>
+$ git switch -C seen next <7>
$ git merge topic/one topic/two && git merge hold/linus <8>
$ git switch maint
$ git cherry-pick master~4 <9>
$ compile/test
$ git tag -s -m "GIT 0.99.9x" v0.99.9x <10>
-$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next pu <11>
+$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next seen <11>
do
git show-branch ko/$branch $branch <12>
done
@@ -294,14 +294,14 @@ $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>
<1> see what you were in the middle of doing, if anything.
<2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.
Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`
-and `pu` (potential updates).
+and `seen`.
<3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others
that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).
<4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.
<5> create topic branch as needed and apply, again with sign-offs.
<6> rebase internal topic branch that has not been merged to the
master or exposed as a part of a stable branch.
-<7> restart `pu` every time from the next.
+<7> restart `seen` every time from the next.
<8> and bundle topic branches still cooking.
<9> backport a critical fix.
<10> create a signed tag.
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ repository at kernel.org, and looks like this:
fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/ko/*
push = refs/heads/master
push = refs/heads/next
- push = +refs/heads/pu
+ push = +refs/heads/seen
push = refs/heads/maint
------------
diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
index abc0dc6bc7..0965b60884 100644
--- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
+++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
@@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ As a given feature goes from experimental to stable, it also
There is a fourth official branch that is used slightly differently:
-* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are
- not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration Branches"
- below).
+* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for
+ things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration
+ Branches" below).
Each of the four branches is usually a direct descendant of the one
above it.
Conceptually, the feature enters at an unstable branch (usually 'next'
-or 'pu'), and "graduates" to 'master' for the next release once it is
+or 'seen'), and "graduates" to 'master' for the next release once it is
considered stable enough.
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ If you make it (very) clear that this branch is going to be deleted
right after the testing, you can even publish this branch, for example
to give the testers a chance to work with it, or other developers a
chance to see if their in-progress work will be compatible. `git.git`
-has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'pu'.
+has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'seen'.
Branch management for a release
@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ This will not happen if the content of the branches was verified as
described in the previous section.
-Branch management for next and pu after a feature release
+Branch management for next and seen after a feature release
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After a feature release, the integration branch 'next' may optionally be
@@ -319,8 +319,8 @@ so.
If you do this, then you should make a public announcement indicating
that 'next' was rewound and rebuilt.
-The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'pu'. A public
-announcement is not necessary since 'pu' is a throw-away branch, as
+The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'seen'. A public
+announcement is not necessary since 'seen' is a throw-away branch, as
described above.
diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
index 833652983f..fd480b8645 100644
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ $ git branch -r
origin/man
origin/master
origin/next
- origin/pu
+ origin/seen
origin/todo
------------------------------------------------
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-24 15:07 ` Denton Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Denton Liu @ 2020-06-24 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Johannes Schindelin
Hi Dscho,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:38PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
> index abc0dc6bc7..0965b60884 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
> @@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ As a given feature goes from experimental to stable, it also
>
> There is a fourth official branch that is used slightly differently:
>
> -* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are
> - not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration Branches"
> - below).
> +* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for
> + things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration
> + Branches" below).
Tiny nit: we should use sq instead of backticks to match the style of
the rest of the document.
-Denton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-24 14:48 ` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget @ 2020-06-24 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Schindelin
From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This patch tries to rewrite history a bit: the mail contents that have
been added to Git's source code are actually fixed, we cannot change
them in hindsight.
But as the `pu` branch _was_ renamed, and as the documents were added to
Git's source code not so much as historical record, but to describe the
status quo, let's pretend that we have a time machine and adjust the
provided information accordingly.
Where appropriate, quotes were added for readability.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------
.../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------
Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------
Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--
4 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
index 73be8b49f8..a67130debb 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.
demonstrated to be regression free. New changes are tested
in 'next' before merged to 'master'.
- - 'pu' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do
+ - 'seen' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do
not yet pass the criteria set for 'next'.
- The tips of 'master' and 'maint' branches will not be rewound to
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.
of the cycle.
- Usually 'master' contains all of 'maint' and 'next' contains all
- of 'master'. 'pu' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but
+ of 'master'. 'seen' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but
is rebuilt directly on 'master'.
- The tip of 'master' is meant to be more stable than any
@@ -229,12 +229,12 @@ by doing the following:
series?)
- Prepare 'jch' branch, which is used to represent somewhere
- between 'master' and 'pu' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.
+ between 'master' and 'seen' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.
- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-jch.sh
+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-jch.sh
The result is a script that lists topics to be merged in order to
- rebuild 'pu' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove
+ rebuild 'seen' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove
later topics that should not be in 'jch' yet. Add a line that
consists of '### match next' before the name of the first topic
in the output that should be in 'jch' but not in 'next' yet.
@@ -291,29 +291,29 @@ by doing the following:
merged to 'master'. This may lose '### match next' marker;
add it again to the appropriate place when it happens.
- - Rebuild 'pu'.
+ - Rebuild 'seen'.
- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-pu.sh
+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-seen.sh
- Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'pu'
+ Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'seen'
in the script. Then
- $ git checkout -B pu jch
- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh
+ $ git checkout -B seen jch
+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh
- When all is well, clean up the redo-pu.sh script with
+ When all is well, clean up the redo-seen.sh script with
- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh -u
+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh -u
Double check by running
- $ git branch --no-merged pu
+ $ git branch --no-merged seen
to see there is no unexpected leftover topics.
At this point, build-test the result for semantic conflicts, and
if there are, prepare an appropriate merge-fix first (see
- appendix), and rebuild the 'pu' branch from scratch, starting at
+ appendix), and rebuild the 'seen' branch from scratch, starting at
the tip of 'jch'.
- Update "What's cooking" message to review the updates to
@@ -323,14 +323,14 @@ by doing the following:
$ Meta/cook
- This script inspects the history between master..pu, finds tips
+ This script inspects the history between master..seen, finds tips
of topic branches, compares what it found with the current
contents in Meta/whats-cooking.txt, and updates that file.
- Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..pu are
+ Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..seen are
added to the "New topics" section, topics listed in the file that
- are no longer found in master..pu are moved to the "Graduated to
+ are no longer found in master..seen are moved to the "Graduated to
master" section, and topics whose commits changed their states
- (e.g. used to be only in 'pu', now merged to 'next') are updated
+ (e.g. used to be only in 'seen', now merged to 'next') are updated
with change markers "<<" and ">>".
Look for lines enclosed in "<<" and ">>"; they hold contents from
@@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ Observations
Some observations to be made.
* Each topic is tested individually, and also together with other
- topics cooking first in 'pu', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.
+ topics cooking first in 'seen', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.
Until it matures, no part of it is merged to 'master'.
* A topic already in 'next' can get fixes while still in
@@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ new use of the variable under its old name. When these two topics
are merged together, the reference to the variable newly added by
the latter topic will still use the old name in the result.
-The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-pu
+The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-seen
scripts implements a crude but usable way to work this issue around.
When the script merges branch $X, it checks if "refs/merge-fix/$X"
exists, and if so, the effect of it is squashed into the result of
@@ -431,14 +431,14 @@ commit that can be squashed into a result of mechanical merge to
correct semantic conflicts.
After finding that the result of merging branch "ai/topic" to an
-integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say pu~4, check the
+integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say seen~4, check the
problematic merge out on a detached HEAD, edit the working tree to
fix the semantic conflict, and make a separate commit to record the
fix-up:
- $ git checkout pu~4
+ $ git checkout seen~4
$ git show -s --pretty=%s ;# double check
- Merge branch 'ai/topic' to pu
+ Merge branch 'ai/topic' to seen
$ edit
$ git commit -m 'merge-fix/ai/topic' -a
@@ -450,9 +450,9 @@ result:
Then double check the result by asking Meta/Reintegrate to redo the
merge:
- $ git checkout pu~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge
+ $ git checkout seen~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge
$ echo ai/topic | Meta/Reintegrate
- $ git diff pu~4
+ $ git diff seen~4
This time, because you prepared refs/merge-fix/ai/topic, the
resulting merge should have been tweaked to include the fix for the
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ branch needs this merge-fix is because another branch merged earlier
to the integration branch changed the underlying assumption ai/topic
branch made (e.g. ai/topic branch added a site to refer to a
variable, while the other branch renamed that variable and adjusted
-existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-pu) script
+existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-seen) script
to merge ai/topic branch before the other branch, then the above
merge-fix should not be applied while merging ai/topic, but should
instead be applied while merging the other branch. You would need
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt
index 02cb5f758d..ece51ddddc 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700
Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the
- public "pu" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
+ public "seen" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
the "master" branch, and how "rebase" works. Also discussed
is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches
upstream.
@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
>>
->> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your "pu"
->> > branch to the real branches.
+>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your
+>> > "seen" branch to the real branches.
>>
> Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?
--------------------------------------
@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.
I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core
Git tools.
-I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I
+I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in 'seen', and I
wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of
-placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit
+placing new things in 'seen' first. At the beginning, the commit
ancestry graph looked like this:
- *"pu" head
+ *"seen" head
master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:
After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:
- *"pu" head
+ *"seen" head
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
\
\---> master
@@ -58,31 +58,31 @@ After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:
The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).
The new master commit holds my documentation updates.
-Now I have to deal with "pu" branch.
+Now I have to deal with "seen" branch.
This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when
Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look
-at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "pu"
+at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "seen"
branch being the "contributor" branch. Your work started at the
tip of the "maintainer" branch some time ago, you made a lot of
progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some
other commits you do not have yet. And "git rebase" was written
with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like
-"pu". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you
+"seen". You _could_ merge master to 'seen' and keep going, but if you
eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily
all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later
operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward
-your changes) "pu" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":
+your changes) "seen" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":
- $ git checkout pu
- $ git rebase master pu
+ $ git checkout seen
+ $ git rebase master seen
What this does is to pick all the commits since the current
-branch (note that I now am on "pu" branch) forked from the
+branch (note that I now am on "seen" branch) forked from the
master branch, and forward port these changes.
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
- \ *"pu" head
+ \ *"seen" head
\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'
The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.
Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file
anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if
-you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "pu", you
+you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "seen", you
can run "git prune" to get rid of those original three commits.
While I am talking about "git rebase", I should talk about how
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt
index 149508e13b..a3e5595a56 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ One of the changes I pulled into the 'master' branch turns out to
break building Git with GCC 2.95. While they were well-intentioned
portability fixes, keeping things working with gcc-2.95 was also
important. Here is what I did to revert the change in the 'master'
-branch and to adjust the 'pu' branch, using core Git tools and
+branch and to adjust the 'seen' branch, using core Git tools and
barebone Porcelain.
First, prepare a throw-away branch in case I screw things up.
@@ -104,11 +104,11 @@ $ git diff master..revert-c99
says nothing.
-Then we rebase the 'pu' branch as usual.
+Then we rebase the 'seen' branch as usual.
------------------------------------------------
-$ git checkout pu
-$ git tag pu-anchor pu
+$ git checkout seen
+$ git tag seen-anchor seen
$ git rebase master
* Applying: Redo "revert" using three-way merge machinery.
First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.
@@ -127,11 +127,11 @@ First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.
First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.
------------------------------------------------
-The temporary tag 'pu-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git
+The temporary tag 'seen-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git
rebase' screws up. After this, I can do these for sanity check:
------------------------------------------------
-$ git diff pu-anchor..pu ;# make sure we got the master fix.
+$ git diff seen-anchor..seen ;# make sure we got the master fix.
$ make CC=gcc-2.95 clean test ;# make sure it fixed the breakage.
$ make clean test ;# make sure it did not cause other breakage.
------------------------------------------------
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Everything is in the good order. I do not need the temporary branch
or tag anymore, so remove them:
------------------------------------------------
-$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/pu-anchor
+$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/seen-anchor
$ git branch -d revert-c99
------------------------------------------------
@@ -168,18 +168,18 @@ Committed merge 7fb9b7262a1d1e0a47bbfdcbbcf50ce0635d3f8f
And the final repository status looks like this:
------------------------------------------------
-$ git show-branch --more=1 master pu rc
+$ git show-branch --more=1 master seen rc
! [master] Revert "Replace zero-length array decls with []."
- ! [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
+ ! [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
* [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .
---
- + [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
- + [pu~1] More documentation updates.
- + [pu~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.
- + [pu~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates
- + [pu~4] Document "git cherry-pick" and "git revert"
- + [pu~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.
- + [pu~6] Redo "revert" using three-way merge machinery.
+ + [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
+ + [seen~1] More documentation updates.
+ + [seen~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.
+ + [seen~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates
+ + [seen~4] Document "git cherry-pick" and "git revert"
+ + [seen~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.
+ + [seen~6] Redo "revert" using three-way merge machinery.
- [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .
++* [master] Revert "Replace zero-length array decls with []."
- [rc~1] Merge refs/heads/master from .
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt
index 89821ec74f..151ee84ceb 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ allowed-groups, to describe which heads can be pushed into by
whom. The format of each file would look like this:
refs/heads/master junio
- +refs/heads/pu junio
+ +refs/heads/seen junio
refs/heads/cogito$ pasky
refs/heads/bw/.* linus
refs/heads/tmp/.* .*
@@ -187,6 +187,6 @@ whom. The format of each file would look like this:
With this, Linus can push or create "bw/penguin" or "bw/zebra"
or "bw/panda" branches, Pasky can do only "cogito", and JC can
-do master and pu branches and make versioned tags. And anybody
-can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the pu record means
+do master and "seen" branches and make versioned tags. And anybody
+can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the "seen" record means
that JC can make non-fast-forward pushes on it.
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* [PATCH v2 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-24 14:48 ` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-24 15:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Denton Liu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget @ 2020-06-24 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Schindelin
From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
As our test suite partially reflects how we work in the Git project, it
is natural that the branch name `pu` was used in a couple places.
Since that branch was renamed to `seen`, let's use the new name
consistently.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 ++++----
t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 ++++++++--------
t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh
index dda81b7d07..8d62edd98b 100755
--- a/t/t5505-remote.sh
+++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh
@@ -988,7 +988,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
+refs/heads/maint:refs/remotes/scratch/maint
+refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master
+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next
- +refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu
+ +refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen
+refs/heads/t/topic:refs/remotes/scratch/t/topic
EOF
sort <<-\EOF >expect.setup-ffonly &&
@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
sort <<-\EOF >expect.respect-ffonly &&
refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master
+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next
- +refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu
+ +refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen
EOF
git clone .git/ setbranches &&
@@ -1016,7 +1016,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.replace &&
- git remote set-branches --add scratch pu t/topic &&
+ git remote set-branches --add scratch seen t/topic &&
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.add-two &&
@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.setup-ffonly &&
- git remote set-branches --add scratch pu &&
+ git remote set-branches --add scratch seen &&
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.respect-ffonly
) &&
diff --git a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh
index 9c6218f568..36ad20a849 100755
--- a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh
+++ b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh
@@ -747,42 +747,42 @@ test_expect_success 'deletion of a non-existent ref alone does trigger post-rece
'
test_expect_success 'mixed ref updates, deletes, invalid deletes trigger hooks with correct input' '
- mk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/pu &&
+ mk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/seen &&
orgmaster=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
newmaster=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
orgnext=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/next) &&
newnext=$ZERO_OID &&
- orgpu=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/pu) &&
- newpu=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
+ orgseen=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/seen) &&
+ newseen=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
git push testrepo refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master \
- refs/heads/master:refs/heads/pu :refs/heads/next \
+ refs/heads/master:refs/heads/seen :refs/heads/next \
:refs/heads/nonexistent &&
(
cd testrepo/.git &&
cat >pre-receive.expect <<-EOF &&
$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master
$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next
- $orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu
+ $orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen
$ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/nonexistent
EOF
cat >update.expect <<-EOF &&
refs/heads/master $orgmaster $newmaster
refs/heads/next $orgnext $newnext
- refs/heads/pu $orgpu $newpu
+ refs/heads/seen $orgseen $newseen
refs/heads/nonexistent $ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID
EOF
cat >post-receive.expect <<-EOF &&
$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master
$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next
- $orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu
+ $orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen
EOF
cat >post-update.expect <<-EOF &&
refs/heads/master
refs/heads/next
- refs/heads/pu
+ refs/heads/seen
EOF
test_cmp pre-receive.expect pre-receive.actual &&
diff --git a/t/t9902-completion.sh b/t/t9902-completion.sh
index 3c44af6940..c824608881 100755
--- a/t/t9902-completion.sh
+++ b/t/t9902-completion.sh
@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ test_expect_success '__gitcomp - prefix' '
'
test_expect_success '__gitcomp - suffix' '
- test_gitcomp "branch.me" "master maint next pu" "branch." \
+ test_gitcomp "branch.me" "master maint next seen" "branch." \
"ma" "." <<-\EOF
branch.master.Z
branch.maint.Z
@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ read -r -d "" refs <<-\EOF
maint
master
next
-pu
+seen
EOF
test_expect_success '__gitcomp_nl - trailing space' '
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-24 15:24 ` Denton Liu
2020-06-24 15:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-24 15:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
5 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Denton Liu @ 2020-06-24 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Johannes Schindelin
Hi Dscho,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> Changes since v1:
>
> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
> patches).
Out of curiosity, why would we ever want to base any patches on `seen`?
I understand there are some very rare edge-cases where it might be
appropriate to base patches on `next` (where the series based on
many, many other topics) but I'm not sure if I know of any situations
where it'd make sense to base topics on `seen`.
Thanks,
Denton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 15:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Denton Liu
@ 2020-06-24 15:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-29 13:40 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-24 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Denton Liu; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git, Johannes Schindelin
Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Dscho,
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> Changes since v1:
>>
>> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
>> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
>> patches).
>
> Out of curiosity, why would we ever want to base any patches on `seen`?
Never. Even bulding on top of 'next' is discouraged.
Either "prepare a merge on top of 'master' with all the topics in
flight that you depend on, and base your series on top of it,
risking that any one of these topics can take your series hostage"
or "wait until these topics graduate and then base your topic on
'master'". I'd vastly prefer the latter, as it would become
cumbersome if one of the topics you base your series on gets
rerolled.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 15:42 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-06-29 13:40 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2020-06-29 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1284 bytes --]
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:48:37PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> >> Changes since v1:
> >>
> >> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
> >> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
> >> patches).
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why would we ever want to base any patches on `seen`?
>
> Never. Even bulding on top of 'next' is discouraged.
>
> Either "prepare a merge on top of 'master' with all the topics in
> flight that you depend on, and base your series on top of it,
> risking that any one of these topics can take your series hostage"
> or "wait until these topics graduate and then base your topic on
> 'master'". I'd vastly prefer the latter, as it would become
> cumbersome if one of the topics you base your series on gets
> rerolled.
I recall having had to base a patch on `seen` (née `pu`) because it
would otherwise have needed "two base branches". In another instance, I
made a patch to fix incorrectly-resolved merge conflicts.
There _are_ occasions when you want to base your patch on `seen`,
admittedly not very common occasions.
Ciao,
Dscho
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-24 15:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Denton Liu
@ 2020-06-24 15:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-24 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
5 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-24 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin
"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:
> Changes since v1:
>
> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
> patches).
Thanks, I actually wanted to include it in 'maint', so I'll queue on
the same base (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it will be in a
maintenance release if we are going to issue one).
> * Adjusted the quoting to match
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/e250f1bb100aca94c914f1b2d38a3849c2566aea.1592909867.git.liu.denton@gmail.com/
I know I mentioned it and I think the patch to SubmittingPatches
does improve by doing `seen` because it matches the way how the
nearby `git pull --rebase` is quoted.
But I am not sure about the patch to gitworkflows.txt, where the
text around the new `seen` mention 'master' and 'next'. I think
your v1 was more (locally) consistent.
I am on the fence to the change to giteveryday.txt, where `pu` got
changed to `seen`; your v1 had "(patches seen by the maintainer)" as
an explanation after the `seen`. I guess it is inconsistent to
explain only why `seen` is `seen` without doing the same for `next`,
so I would say v2 is an improvement over v1.
In short,
> 1: dc6f971290 ! 1: 35e3dafd6a docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`
> @@ Documentation/SubmittingPatches: their trees themselves.
> patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
> of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
> - tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of
> -+ tell you if your patch is merged in 'seen' if you rebase on top of
> ++ tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
> master).
Good.
> * Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
> @@ Documentation/giteveryday.txt: $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>
> <2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.
> Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`
> -and `pu` (potential updates).
> -+and `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer).
> ++and `seen`.
Probably good.
> <3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others
> that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).
> <4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.
> @@ Documentation/gitworkflows.txt: As a given feature goes from experimental to sta
> -* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are
> - not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration Branches"
> - below).
> -+* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for
> ++* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for
Not---'seen' was more consistent relative to the surrounding text.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 15:38 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-06-24 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-24 17:24 ` Denton Liu
2020-06-29 14:05 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-24 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
>> Changes since v1:
>>
>> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
>> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
>> patches).
>
> Thanks, I actually wanted to include it in 'maint', so I'll queue on
> the same base (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it will be in a
> maintenance release if we are going to issue one).
By the way, I find myself typing 'pu' all the time, even though I've
been using 'seen' for almost 48 hours by now. My private tooling
all have been updated to work with 'seen', but it seems that it
takes time to retrain muscle memory. I'll see if I can fully adjust
before the next week starts.
I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'
and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for
using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to
gauge the cost.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-06-24 17:24 ` Denton Liu
2020-06-24 17:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-29 14:05 ` Johannes Schindelin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Denton Liu @ 2020-06-24 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano
Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git, Johannes Schindelin
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:05:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'
> and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for
> using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to
> gauge the cost.
Heh, I was wondering if you had any ulterior motives ;)
Since we're on the topic of the cost of renaming branches, I was reading
a reply from you back in 2011 about how HEAD symrefs are the only valid
ones[0]. I'm not sure if the situation has changed since then but
perhaps we could officially expand the scope of symrefs to allow users
to essentially alias branches? It might reduce the cost of performing
branch renames by having a backwards compatible option.
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/7vsjvpq0jk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 17:24 ` Denton Liu
@ 2020-06-24 17:38 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-24 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Denton Liu; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git, Johannes Schindelin
Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:05:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'
>> and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for
>> using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to
>> gauge the cost.
>
> Heh, I was wondering if you had any ulterior motives ;)
>
> Since we're on the topic of the cost of renaming branches, I was reading
> a reply from you back in 2011 about how HEAD symrefs are the only valid
> ones[0]. I'm not sure if the situation has changed since then but
> perhaps we could officially expand the scope of symrefs to allow users
> to essentially alias branches? It might reduce the cost of performing
> branch renames by having a backwards compatible option.
It would be one way to transition, adding a symref in refs/heads/pu
pointing at refs/heads/seen, but that unfortunately defeats the
whole point of the rename, to make room for pu/<topic> hierarchy for
contributors with names, in which P and U appear as the first and
the last capital letters, respectively.
So, no, that won't be a solution, unfortunately.
I have an unused branch 'pu/nomore' in the primary repository I work
in, so that my accidental "git checkout -B pu jch" will fail, which
also takes advantage of this D/F conflict preventing a ref from
being created.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 17:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-24 17:24 ` Denton Liu
@ 2020-06-29 14:05 ` Johannes Schindelin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2020-06-29 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git, Denton Liu
Hi Junio,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> > writes:
> >
> >> Changes since v1:
> >>
> >> * Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
> >> than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
> >> patches).
> >
> > Thanks, I actually wanted to include it in 'maint', so I'll queue on
> > the same base (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it will be in a
> > maintenance release if we are going to issue one).
>
> By the way, I find myself typing 'pu' all the time, even though I've
> been using 'seen' for almost 48 hours by now. My private tooling
> all have been updated to work with 'seen', but it seems that it
> takes time to retrain muscle memory. I'll see if I can fully adjust
> before the next week starts.
I do understand the issue. If you're as addicted to tab-completion as I
am, something like `pulse` might have made that transition.
Ciao,
Dscho
> I do not know how many of you regularly have interacted with 'pu'
> and now need to go through the same adjustment as I do. Sorry for
> using you as a guinea pig for an experiment for you know what to
> gauge the cost.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-24 14:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-24 15:38 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-06-25 12:18 ` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (4 more replies)
5 siblings, 5 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget @ 2020-06-25 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin
This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.
Please note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places
where pu is used:
* In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not
English (as in "gpg n'a pas pu signer les données" where "pu" is French
for the English "could").
* In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for
"pack-objects updates".
Changes since v2:
* One accidental quoting change in v1 was reverted.
* Rebased onto maint (no merge conflicts, so it does not actually change
anything).
Changes since v1:
* Rebased onto master (no conflicts, so it is safe, and it is more robust
than basing the patches on seen which already contains v1 of these
patches).
* Adjusted the quoting to match
https://lore.kernel.org/git/e250f1bb100aca94c914f1b2d38a3849c2566aea.1592909867.git.liu.denton@gmail.com/
.
Johannes Schindelin (3):
docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`
docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`
tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced
Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 +-
Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 ++--
Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 +--
Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 +-
Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 ++--
Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 +++---
Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------
.../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------
Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------
Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--
Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-
t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 +--
t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 +++---
t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 +-
14 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)
base-commit: af6b65d45ef179ed52087e80cb089f6b2349f4ec
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-668%2Fdscho%2Faccommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v3
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-668/dscho/accommodate-for-pu-having-been-renamed-to-seen-v3
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/668
Range-diff vs v2:
1: 35e3dafd6a ! 1: 13e03e0e65 docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`
@@ Documentation/gitworkflows.txt: As a given feature goes from experimental to sta
-* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are
- not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration Branches"
- below).
-+* `seen` (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for
++* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for
+ things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration
+ Branches" below).
2: c2bcfdcb5b = 2: 13f3501c84 docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`
3: c8e356c02f = 3: e38ade2ee0 tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-25 12:18 ` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget @ 2020-06-25 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Schindelin
From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
As of "What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2020, #04; Mon, 22)", there is no
longer any `pu` branch, but a `seen` branch.
While we technically do not even need to update the manual pages, it
makes sense to update them because they clearly talk about branches in
git.git.
Please note that in two instances, this patch not only updates the
branch name, but also the description "(proposed updates)".
Where appropriate, quotes have been added for readability.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt | 4 ++--
Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 +++++-----
Documentation/git-fetch.txt | 8 ++++----
Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt | 4 ++--
Documentation/giteveryday.txt | 10 +++++-----
Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 16 ++++++++--------
Documentation/user-manual.txt | 2 +-
7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
index 427274df4d..d85c9b5143 100644
--- a/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
+++ b/Documentation/MyFirstContribution.txt
@@ -1179,8 +1179,8 @@ look at the section below this one for some context.)
[[after-approval]]
=== After Review Approval
-The Git project has four integration branches: `pu`, `next`, `master`, and
-`maint`. Your change will be placed into `pu` fairly early on by the maintainer
+The Git project has four integration branches: `seen`, `next`, `master`, and
+`maint`. Your change will be placed into `seen` fairly early on by the maintainer
while it is still in the review process; from there, when it is ready for wider
testing, it will be merged into `next`. Plenty of early testers use `next` and
may report issues. Eventually, changes in `next` will make it to `master`,
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 4515cab519..c610a320d1 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ change is relevant to.
base your work on the tip of the topic.
* A new feature should be based on `master` in general. If the new
- feature depends on a topic that is in `pu`, but not in `master`,
+ feature depends on a topic that is in `seen`, but not in `master`,
base your work on the tip of that topic.
* Corrections and enhancements to a topic not yet in `master` should
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ change is relevant to.
into the series.
* In the exceptional case that a new feature depends on several topics
- not in `master`, start working on `next` or `pu` privately and send
+ not in `master`, start working on `next` or `seen` privately and send
out patches for discussion. Before the final merge, you may have to
wait until some of the dependent topics graduate to `master`, and
rebase your work.
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ change is relevant to.
these parts should be based on their trees.
To find the tip of a topic branch, run `git log --first-parent
-master..pu` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
+master..seen` and look for the merge commit. The second parent of this
commit is the tip of the topic branch.
[[separate-commits]]
@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ help you find out who they are.
and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
-from the list and queue it to `pu`, in order to make it easier for
+from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
people play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
their trees themselves.
@@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ their trees themselves.
master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
- tell you if your patch is merged in pu if you rebase on top of
+ tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
master).
* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
diff --git a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
index 5b1909fdf4..45b6d8e633 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
@@ -255,14 +255,14 @@ refspec.
* Using refspecs explicitly:
+
------------------------------------------------
-$ git fetch origin +pu:pu maint:tmp
+$ git fetch origin +seen:seen maint:tmp
------------------------------------------------
+
-This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `pu` and `tmp` in
+This updates (or creates, as necessary) branches `seen` and `tmp` in
the local repository by fetching from the branches (respectively)
-`pu` and `maint` from the remote repository.
+`seen` and `maint` from the remote repository.
+
-The `pu` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,
+The `seen` branch will be updated even if it does not fast-forward,
because it is prefixed with a plus sign; `tmp` will not be.
* Peek at a remote's branch, without configuring the remote in your local
diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
index 0a5c8b7d49..492e573856 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-remote.txt
@@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ f25a265a342aed6041ab0cc484224d9ca54b6f41 refs/tags/v0.99.1
7ceca275d047c90c0c7d5afb13ab97efdf51bd6e refs/tags/v0.99.3
c5db5456ae3b0873fc659c19fafdde22313cc441 refs/tags/v0.99.2
0918385dbd9656cab0d1d81ba7453d49bbc16250 refs/tags/junio-gpg-pub
-$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master pu rc
+$ git ls-remote http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git master seen rc
5fe978a5381f1fbad26a80e682ddd2a401966740 refs/heads/master
-c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061 refs/heads/pu
+c781a84b5204fb294c9ccc79f8b3baceeb32c061 refs/heads/seen
$ git remote add korg http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
$ git ls-remote --tags korg v\*
d6602ec5194c87b0fc87103ca4d67251c76f233a refs/tags/v0.99
diff --git a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt
index 1bd919f92b..faba2ef088 100644
--- a/Documentation/giteveryday.txt
+++ b/Documentation/giteveryday.txt
@@ -278,13 +278,13 @@ $ git am -3 -i -s ./+to-apply <4>
$ compile/test
$ git switch -c hold/linus && git am -3 -i -s ./+hold-linus <5>
$ git switch topic/one && git rebase master <6>
-$ git switch -C pu next <7>
+$ git switch -C seen next <7>
$ git merge topic/one topic/two && git merge hold/linus <8>
$ git switch maint
$ git cherry-pick master~4 <9>
$ compile/test
$ git tag -s -m "GIT 0.99.9x" v0.99.9x <10>
-$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next pu <11>
+$ git fetch ko && for branch in master maint next seen <11>
do
git show-branch ko/$branch $branch <12>
done
@@ -294,14 +294,14 @@ $ git push --follow-tags ko <13>
<1> see what you were in the middle of doing, if anything.
<2> see which branches haven't been merged into `master` yet.
Likewise for any other integration branches e.g. `maint`, `next`
-and `pu` (potential updates).
+and `seen`.
<3> read mails, save ones that are applicable, and save others
that are not quite ready (other mail readers are available).
<4> apply them, interactively, with your sign-offs.
<5> create topic branch as needed and apply, again with sign-offs.
<6> rebase internal topic branch that has not been merged to the
master or exposed as a part of a stable branch.
-<7> restart `pu` every time from the next.
+<7> restart `seen` every time from the next.
<8> and bundle topic branches still cooking.
<9> backport a critical fix.
<10> create a signed tag.
@@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ repository at kernel.org, and looks like this:
fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/ko/*
push = refs/heads/master
push = refs/heads/next
- push = +refs/heads/pu
+ push = +refs/heads/seen
push = refs/heads/maint
------------
diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
index abc0dc6bc7..2db7ba7842 100644
--- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
+++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
@@ -85,15 +85,15 @@ As a given feature goes from experimental to stable, it also
There is a fourth official branch that is used slightly differently:
-* 'pu' (proposed updates) is an integration branch for things that are
- not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration Branches"
- below).
+* 'seen' (patches seen by the maintainer) is an integration branch for
+ things that are not quite ready for inclusion yet (see "Integration
+ Branches" below).
Each of the four branches is usually a direct descendant of the one
above it.
Conceptually, the feature enters at an unstable branch (usually 'next'
-or 'pu'), and "graduates" to 'master' for the next release once it is
+or 'seen'), and "graduates" to 'master' for the next release once it is
considered stable enough.
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ If you make it (very) clear that this branch is going to be deleted
right after the testing, you can even publish this branch, for example
to give the testers a chance to work with it, or other developers a
chance to see if their in-progress work will be compatible. `git.git`
-has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'pu'.
+has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'seen'.
Branch management for a release
@@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ This will not happen if the content of the branches was verified as
described in the previous section.
-Branch management for next and pu after a feature release
+Branch management for next and seen after a feature release
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After a feature release, the integration branch 'next' may optionally be
@@ -319,8 +319,8 @@ so.
If you do this, then you should make a public announcement indicating
that 'next' was rewound and rebuilt.
-The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'pu'. A public
-announcement is not necessary since 'pu' is a throw-away branch, as
+The same rewind and rebuild process may be followed for 'seen'. A public
+announcement is not necessary since 'seen' is a throw-away branch, as
described above.
diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
index 833652983f..fd480b8645 100644
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ $ git branch -r
origin/man
origin/master
origin/next
- origin/pu
+ origin/seen
origin/todo
------------------------------------------------
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-25 12:18 ` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget @ 2020-06-25 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Schindelin
From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
This patch tries to rewrite history a bit: the mail contents that have
been added to Git's source code are actually fixed, we cannot change
them in hindsight.
But as the `pu` branch _was_ renamed, and as the documents were added to
Git's source code not so much as historical record, but to describe the
status quo, let's pretend that we have a time machine and adjust the
provided information accordingly.
Where appropriate, quotes were added for readability.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 52 +++++++++----------
.../howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 32 ++++++------
Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt | 32 ++++++------
Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt | 6 +--
4 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
index ca4378740c..3c3030bfd5 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.
demonstrated to be regression free. New changes are tested
in 'next' before merged to 'master'.
- - 'pu' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do
+ - 'seen' branch is used to publish other proposed changes that do
not yet pass the criteria set for 'next'.
- The tips of 'master' and 'maint' branches will not be rewound to
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ this mailing list after each feature release is made.
of the cycle.
- Usually 'master' contains all of 'maint' and 'next' contains all
- of 'master'. 'pu' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but
+ of 'master'. 'seen' contains all the topics merged to 'next', but
is rebuilt directly on 'master'.
- The tip of 'master' is meant to be more stable than any
@@ -211,12 +211,12 @@ by doing the following:
series?)
- Prepare 'jch' branch, which is used to represent somewhere
- between 'master' and 'pu' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.
+ between 'master' and 'seen' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'.
- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-jch.sh
+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-jch.sh
The result is a script that lists topics to be merged in order to
- rebuild 'pu' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove
+ rebuild 'seen' as the input to Meta/Reintegrate script. Remove
later topics that should not be in 'jch' yet. Add a line that
consists of '### match next' before the name of the first topic
in the output that should be in 'jch' but not in 'next' yet.
@@ -273,29 +273,29 @@ by doing the following:
merged to 'master'. This may lose '### match next' marker;
add it again to the appropriate place when it happens.
- - Rebuild 'pu'.
+ - Rebuild 'seen'.
- $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-pu.sh
+ $ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-seen.sh
- Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'pu'
+ Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'seen'
in the script. Then
- $ git checkout -B pu jch
- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh
+ $ git checkout -B seen jch
+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh
- When all is well, clean up the redo-pu.sh script with
+ When all is well, clean up the redo-seen.sh script with
- $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh -u
+ $ sh Meta/redo-seen.sh -u
Double check by running
- $ git branch --no-merged pu
+ $ git branch --no-merged seen
to see there is no unexpected leftover topics.
At this point, build-test the result for semantic conflicts, and
if there are, prepare an appropriate merge-fix first (see
- appendix), and rebuild the 'pu' branch from scratch, starting at
+ appendix), and rebuild the 'seen' branch from scratch, starting at
the tip of 'jch'.
- Update "What's cooking" message to review the updates to
@@ -305,14 +305,14 @@ by doing the following:
$ Meta/cook
- This script inspects the history between master..pu, finds tips
+ This script inspects the history between master..seen, finds tips
of topic branches, compares what it found with the current
contents in Meta/whats-cooking.txt, and updates that file.
- Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..pu are
+ Topics not listed in the file but are found in master..seen are
added to the "New topics" section, topics listed in the file that
- are no longer found in master..pu are moved to the "Graduated to
+ are no longer found in master..seen are moved to the "Graduated to
master" section, and topics whose commits changed their states
- (e.g. used to be only in 'pu', now merged to 'next') are updated
+ (e.g. used to be only in 'seen', now merged to 'next') are updated
with change markers "<<" and ">>".
Look for lines enclosed in "<<" and ">>"; they hold contents from
@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ Observations
Some observations to be made.
* Each topic is tested individually, and also together with other
- topics cooking first in 'pu', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.
+ topics cooking first in 'seen', then in 'jch' and then in 'next'.
Until it matures, no part of it is merged to 'master'.
* A topic already in 'next' can get fixes while still in
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ new use of the variable under its old name. When these two topics
are merged together, the reference to the variable newly added by
the latter topic will still use the old name in the result.
-The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-pu
+The Meta/Reintegrate script that is used by redo-jch and redo-seen
scripts implements a crude but usable way to work this issue around.
When the script merges branch $X, it checks if "refs/merge-fix/$X"
exists, and if so, the effect of it is squashed into the result of
@@ -405,14 +405,14 @@ commit that can be squashed into a result of mechanical merge to
correct semantic conflicts.
After finding that the result of merging branch "ai/topic" to an
-integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say pu~4, check the
+integration branch had such a semantic conflict, say seen~4, check the
problematic merge out on a detached HEAD, edit the working tree to
fix the semantic conflict, and make a separate commit to record the
fix-up:
- $ git checkout pu~4
+ $ git checkout seen~4
$ git show -s --pretty=%s ;# double check
- Merge branch 'ai/topic' to pu
+ Merge branch 'ai/topic' to seen
$ edit
$ git commit -m 'merge-fix/ai/topic' -a
@@ -424,9 +424,9 @@ result:
Then double check the result by asking Meta/Reintegrate to redo the
merge:
- $ git checkout pu~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge
+ $ git checkout seen~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge
$ echo ai/topic | Meta/Reintegrate
- $ git diff pu~4
+ $ git diff seen~4
This time, because you prepared refs/merge-fix/ai/topic, the
resulting merge should have been tweaked to include the fix for the
@@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ branch needs this merge-fix is because another branch merged earlier
to the integration branch changed the underlying assumption ai/topic
branch made (e.g. ai/topic branch added a site to refer to a
variable, while the other branch renamed that variable and adjusted
-existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-pu) script
+existing use sites), and if you changed redo-jch (or redo-seen) script
to merge ai/topic branch before the other branch, then the above
merge-fix should not be applied while merging ai/topic, but should
instead be applied while merging the other branch. You would need
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt
index 02cb5f758d..ece51ddddc 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700
Abstract: In this article, JC talks about how he rebases the
- public "pu" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
+ public "seen" branch using the core Git tools when he updates
the "master" branch, and how "rebase" works. Also discussed
is how this applies to individual developers who sends patches
upstream.
@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
>>
->> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your "pu"
->> > branch to the real branches.
+>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your
+>> > "seen" branch to the real branches.
>>
> Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?
--------------------------------------
@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.
I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core
Git tools.
-I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I
+I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in 'seen', and I
wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of
-placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit
+placing new things in 'seen' first. At the beginning, the commit
ancestry graph looked like this:
- *"pu" head
+ *"seen" head
master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:
After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:
- *"pu" head
+ *"seen" head
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
\
\---> master
@@ -58,31 +58,31 @@ After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:
The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).
The new master commit holds my documentation updates.
-Now I have to deal with "pu" branch.
+Now I have to deal with "seen" branch.
This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when
Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look
-at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "pu"
+at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "seen"
branch being the "contributor" branch. Your work started at the
tip of the "maintainer" branch some time ago, you made a lot of
progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some
other commits you do not have yet. And "git rebase" was written
with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like
-"pu". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you
+"seen". You _could_ merge master to 'seen' and keep going, but if you
eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily
all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later
operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward
-your changes) "pu" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":
+your changes) "seen" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":
- $ git checkout pu
- $ git rebase master pu
+ $ git checkout seen
+ $ git rebase master seen
What this does is to pick all the commits since the current
-branch (note that I now am on "pu" branch) forked from the
+branch (note that I now am on "seen" branch) forked from the
master branch, and forward port these changes.
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
- \ *"pu" head
+ \ *"seen" head
\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'
The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.
Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file
anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if
-you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "pu", you
+you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "seen", you
can run "git prune" to get rid of those original three commits.
While I am talking about "git rebase", I should talk about how
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt
index 149508e13b..a3e5595a56 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/revert-branch-rebase.txt
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ One of the changes I pulled into the 'master' branch turns out to
break building Git with GCC 2.95. While they were well-intentioned
portability fixes, keeping things working with gcc-2.95 was also
important. Here is what I did to revert the change in the 'master'
-branch and to adjust the 'pu' branch, using core Git tools and
+branch and to adjust the 'seen' branch, using core Git tools and
barebone Porcelain.
First, prepare a throw-away branch in case I screw things up.
@@ -104,11 +104,11 @@ $ git diff master..revert-c99
says nothing.
-Then we rebase the 'pu' branch as usual.
+Then we rebase the 'seen' branch as usual.
------------------------------------------------
-$ git checkout pu
-$ git tag pu-anchor pu
+$ git checkout seen
+$ git tag seen-anchor seen
$ git rebase master
* Applying: Redo "revert" using three-way merge machinery.
First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.
@@ -127,11 +127,11 @@ First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.
First trying simple merge strategy to cherry-pick.
------------------------------------------------
-The temporary tag 'pu-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git
+The temporary tag 'seen-anchor' is me just being careful, in case 'git
rebase' screws up. After this, I can do these for sanity check:
------------------------------------------------
-$ git diff pu-anchor..pu ;# make sure we got the master fix.
+$ git diff seen-anchor..seen ;# make sure we got the master fix.
$ make CC=gcc-2.95 clean test ;# make sure it fixed the breakage.
$ make clean test ;# make sure it did not cause other breakage.
------------------------------------------------
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Everything is in the good order. I do not need the temporary branch
or tag anymore, so remove them:
------------------------------------------------
-$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/pu-anchor
+$ rm -f .git/refs/tags/seen-anchor
$ git branch -d revert-c99
------------------------------------------------
@@ -168,18 +168,18 @@ Committed merge 7fb9b7262a1d1e0a47bbfdcbbcf50ce0635d3f8f
And the final repository status looks like this:
------------------------------------------------
-$ git show-branch --more=1 master pu rc
+$ git show-branch --more=1 master seen rc
! [master] Revert "Replace zero-length array decls with []."
- ! [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
+ ! [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
* [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .
---
- + [pu] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
- + [pu~1] More documentation updates.
- + [pu~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.
- + [pu~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates
- + [pu~4] Document "git cherry-pick" and "git revert"
- + [pu~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.
- + [pu~6] Redo "revert" using three-way merge machinery.
+ + [seen] git-repack: Add option to repack all objects.
+ + [seen~1] More documentation updates.
+ + [seen~2] Show commits in topo order and name all commits.
+ + [seen~3] mailinfo and applymbox updates
+ + [seen~4] Document "git cherry-pick" and "git revert"
+ + [seen~5] Remove git-apply-patch-script.
+ + [seen~6] Redo "revert" using three-way merge machinery.
- [rc] Merge refs/heads/master from .
++* [master] Revert "Replace zero-length array decls with []."
- [rc~1] Merge refs/heads/master from .
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt
index 89821ec74f..151ee84ceb 100644
--- a/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt
+++ b/Documentation/howto/update-hook-example.txt
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ allowed-groups, to describe which heads can be pushed into by
whom. The format of each file would look like this:
refs/heads/master junio
- +refs/heads/pu junio
+ +refs/heads/seen junio
refs/heads/cogito$ pasky
refs/heads/bw/.* linus
refs/heads/tmp/.* .*
@@ -187,6 +187,6 @@ whom. The format of each file would look like this:
With this, Linus can push or create "bw/penguin" or "bw/zebra"
or "bw/panda" branches, Pasky can do only "cogito", and JC can
-do master and pu branches and make versioned tags. And anybody
-can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the pu record means
+do master and "seen" branches and make versioned tags. And anybody
+can do tmp/blah branches. The '+' sign at the "seen" record means
that JC can make non-fast-forward pushes on it.
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-25 12:18 ` Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
2020-06-25 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Junio C Hamano
2020-06-26 9:06 ` Update ProGit for pu -> seen change? (was Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen) Kaartic Sivaraam
4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget @ 2020-06-25 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Schindelin
From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
As our test suite partially reflects how we work in the Git project, it
is natural that the branch name `pu` was used in a couple places.
Since that branch was renamed to `seen`, let's use the new name
consistently.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---
t/t5505-remote.sh | 8 ++++----
t/t5516-fetch-push.sh | 16 ++++++++--------
t/t9902-completion.sh | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh
index dda81b7d07..8d62edd98b 100755
--- a/t/t5505-remote.sh
+++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh
@@ -988,7 +988,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
+refs/heads/maint:refs/remotes/scratch/maint
+refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master
+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next
- +refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu
+ +refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen
+refs/heads/t/topic:refs/remotes/scratch/t/topic
EOF
sort <<-\EOF >expect.setup-ffonly &&
@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
sort <<-\EOF >expect.respect-ffonly &&
refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/scratch/master
+refs/heads/next:refs/remotes/scratch/next
- +refs/heads/pu:refs/remotes/scratch/pu
+ +refs/heads/seen:refs/remotes/scratch/seen
EOF
git clone .git/ setbranches &&
@@ -1016,7 +1016,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.replace &&
- git remote set-branches --add scratch pu t/topic &&
+ git remote set-branches --add scratch seen t/topic &&
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.add-two &&
@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-branches' '
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.setup-ffonly &&
- git remote set-branches --add scratch pu &&
+ git remote set-branches --add scratch seen &&
git config --get-all remote.scratch.fetch >config-result &&
sort <config-result >../actual.respect-ffonly
) &&
diff --git a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh
index 9ff041a093..12ae04c1fe 100755
--- a/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh
+++ b/t/t5516-fetch-push.sh
@@ -747,42 +747,42 @@ test_expect_success 'deletion of a non-existent ref alone does trigger post-rece
'
test_expect_success 'mixed ref updates, deletes, invalid deletes trigger hooks with correct input' '
- mk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/pu &&
+ mk_test_with_hooks testrepo heads/master heads/next heads/seen &&
orgmaster=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
newmaster=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
orgnext=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/next) &&
newnext=$ZERO_OID &&
- orgpu=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/pu) &&
- newpu=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
+ orgseen=$(cd testrepo && git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/seen) &&
+ newseen=$(git show-ref -s --verify refs/heads/master) &&
git push testrepo refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master \
- refs/heads/master:refs/heads/pu :refs/heads/next \
+ refs/heads/master:refs/heads/seen :refs/heads/next \
:refs/heads/nonexistent &&
(
cd testrepo/.git &&
cat >pre-receive.expect <<-EOF &&
$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master
$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next
- $orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu
+ $orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen
$ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID refs/heads/nonexistent
EOF
cat >update.expect <<-EOF &&
refs/heads/master $orgmaster $newmaster
refs/heads/next $orgnext $newnext
- refs/heads/pu $orgpu $newpu
+ refs/heads/seen $orgseen $newseen
refs/heads/nonexistent $ZERO_OID $ZERO_OID
EOF
cat >post-receive.expect <<-EOF &&
$orgmaster $newmaster refs/heads/master
$orgnext $newnext refs/heads/next
- $orgpu $newpu refs/heads/pu
+ $orgseen $newseen refs/heads/seen
EOF
cat >post-update.expect <<-EOF &&
refs/heads/master
refs/heads/next
- refs/heads/pu
+ refs/heads/seen
EOF
test_cmp pre-receive.expect pre-receive.actual &&
diff --git a/t/t9902-completion.sh b/t/t9902-completion.sh
index 5505e5aa24..3fef499322 100755
--- a/t/t9902-completion.sh
+++ b/t/t9902-completion.sh
@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ test_expect_success '__gitcomp - prefix' '
'
test_expect_success '__gitcomp - suffix' '
- test_gitcomp "branch.me" "master maint next pu" "branch." \
+ test_gitcomp "branch.me" "master maint next seen" "branch." \
"ma" "." <<-\EOF
branch.master.Z
branch.maint.Z
@@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ read -r -d "" refs <<-\EOF
maint
master
next
-pu
+seen
EOF
test_expect_success '__gitcomp_nl - trailing space' '
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
@ 2020-06-25 16:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-06-29 14:07 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-06-26 9:06 ` Update ProGit for pu -> seen change? (was Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen) Kaartic Sivaraam
4 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-25 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, Denton Liu, Johannes Schindelin
"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:
> This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.
>
> Please note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places
> where pu is used:
>
> * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not
> English (as in "gpg n'a pas pu signer les données" where "pu" is French
> for the English "could").
> * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for
> "pack-objects updates".
>
> Changes since v2:
>
> * One accidental quoting change in v1 was reverted.
Thanks for being thorough.
You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks
good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one
roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so
bad, either ;-)
Will replace.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-25 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-06-29 14:07 ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-06-30 16:03 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2020-06-29 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git, Denton Liu
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1194 bytes --]
Hi Junio,
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.
> >
> > Please note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places
> > where pu is used:
> >
> > * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not
> > English (as in "gpg n'a pas pu signer les données" where "pu" is French
> > for the English "could").
> > * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for
> > "pack-objects updates".
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> >
> > * One accidental quoting change in v1 was reverted.
>
> Thanks for being thorough.
>
> You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks
> good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one
> roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so
> bad, either ;-)
To be honest, the GitGitGadget-based workflow makes it quicker for me to
just submit a new iteration. In fact, I did not even see your fixup until
I read your mail.
Ciao,
Dscho
>
> Will replace.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-29 14:07 ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2020-06-30 16:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-07-01 10:42 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-30 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git, Denton Liu
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>> You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks
>> good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one
>> roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so
>> bad, either ;-)
>
> To be honest, the GitGitGadget-based workflow makes it quicker for me to
> just submit a new iteration.
I do not mind seeing a new iteration that gives easier time for
others to comment on the version that is closer to the final than
the previous round. The offer was only for contributors who find
it easier to just say "yeah, I am happy with that change" than
submitting a new round.
> In fact, I did not even see your fixup until I read your mail.
This I actually would mind a bit more. The reason why I publish
'seen' is to make it easier for authors of individual topics how
their work would play with other topics in flight, and it diminishes
the value of it if contributors do not pay attention to what is
queued there. I expect contributors to fetch and look at what is
queued in origin/seen.
There may be evil merges that reveal subtle interactions between
topics, some of which may involve the topic an author may care
about. There may be fixups for problems that were not found during
review but only found during the integration process. I try to
communicate these back on the list when possible, but the thing is,
a day does not have sufficient number of minutes for me to always do
so.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
2020-06-30 16:03 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-07-01 10:42 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2020-07-01 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, git, Denton Liu
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> >> You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks
> >> good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one
> >> roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so
> >> bad, either ;-)
> >
> > To be honest, the GitGitGadget-based workflow makes it quicker for me to
> > just submit a new iteration.
>
> I do not mind seeing a new iteration that gives easier time for
> others to comment on the version that is closer to the final than
> the previous round. The offer was only for contributors who find
> it easier to just say "yeah, I am happy with that change" than
> submitting a new round.
>
> > In fact, I did not even see your fixup until I read your mail.
>
> This I actually would mind a bit more. The reason why I publish
> 'seen' is to make it easier for authors of individual topics how
> their work would play with other topics in flight, and it diminishes
> the value of it if contributors do not pay attention to what is
> queued there. I expect contributors to fetch and look at what is
> queued in origin/seen.
>
> There may be evil merges that reveal subtle interactions between
> topics, some of which may involve the topic an author may care
> about. There may be fixups for problems that were not found during
> review but only found during the integration process. I try to
> communicate these back on the list when possible, but the thing is,
> a day does not have sufficient number of minutes for me to always do
> so.
I understand. And I am trying my best to accommodate.
Ciao,
Dscho
>
> Thanks.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Update ProGit for pu -> seen change? (was Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen)
2020-06-25 12:18 ` [PATCH v3 " Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-06-25 16:22 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-06-26 9:06 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
4 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Kaartic Sivaraam @ 2020-06-26 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget, Denton Liu,
Johannes Schindelin
On 25-06-2020 17:48, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> This patch series adjusts Git's own source code to reflect that change.
>
> Please note that even with these patches, there are still a couple places
> where pu is used:
>
This reminds me. The ProGit book references the `pu` branch in several
places in the text and images IIRC. Is it fine to change them now?
Would it be premature?
> * In the translations. These are legitimate words in languages that are not
> English (as in "gpg n'a pas pu signer les données" where "pu" is French
> for the English "could").
> * In upload-pack.c, where a variable named pu is short form for
> "pack-objects updates".
--
Sivaraam
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread