Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Christian Couder]

Hi,

A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:

  https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md

Everyone is welcome to contribute in any section either by editing the
above page on GitHub and sending a pull request, or by commenting on
this GitHub issue:

  https://github.com/git/git.github.io/issues/285

You can also reply to this email.

In general all kinds of contribution, for example proofreading,
suggestions for articles or links, help on the issues in GitHub, and
so on, are very much appreciated.

I tried to cc everyone who appears in this edition, but maybe I missed
some people, sorry about that.

Jakub, Markus, Gabriel and me plan to publish this edition on
Wednesday April 18th.

Thanks,
Christian.

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Christian Couder]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder
<christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:
>
>   https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md

The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake
about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those
discussions.

Thanks Jake!

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Sergey Organov]

Hi Christian,

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:
>>
>>   https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md
>
> The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake
> about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those
> discussions.

I find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what
and how has been discussed, except for a few issues.

[all quotations below are taken from the draft]

> Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts
> (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?)
> followed.
>
>    Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
>    (written by Jacob Keller)

What article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please
check, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not
by Jacob, and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing
merges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs
right after the next paragraph:

> After the discussions in the above article Sergey posted an outline of a
> potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating
> it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the
> merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result. 

The reference to:

    Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
    (written by Sergey Organov)

belongs here, if at all.

In addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following:

> Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
> his updated strategy.

This has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during
application of both strategies. Something like this, maybe:

"Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
his updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any
conflicts."

Next, this is very close, but not exactly right:

> Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately
> resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge
> commit as a merge base during the final step.

This was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the
original RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it
right at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as
merge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong
merge base, that is the one computed by "git merge-base U1' U2'".

Something along these lines may fit better:

"Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested,
ultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method,
specifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the
final step."

I'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right
here. The reference is:

https://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com/

Thanks a lot!

-- Sergey

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Christian Couder]

Hi Sergey,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder
>> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:
>>>
>>>   https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md
>>
>> The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake
>> about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those
>> discussions.
>
> I find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what
> and how has been discussed, except for a few issues.
>
> [all quotations below are taken from the draft]
>
>> Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts
>> (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?)
>> followed.
>>
>>    Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
>>    (written by Jacob Keller)
>
> What article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please
> check, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not
> by Jacob,

Jake wrote the article below the above line. His article summarizes
the discussions that happened following your email that is linked to
in the above line. The above line is actually the title of Jake's
second article.

> and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing
> merges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs
> right after the next paragraph:
>
>> After the discussions in the above article

Here "the above article" means the Jake's "branch -l: print useful
info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article above the current
article.

>> Sergey posted an outline of a
>> potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating
>> it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the
>> merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result.
>
> The reference to:
>
>     Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
>     (written by Sergey Organov)
>
> belongs here, if at all.

You call it a reference but it is actually the title of the article
that Jake wrote. Yes, it contains a link to your email, but that is
just because we want to make it easy and straightforward for people
who are interested in all the discussions to find them.

It has been like this since the very beginning of Git Rev News. For
example in the first edition
(https://git.github.io/rev_news/2015/03/25/edition-1/) the first
article was contributed by Junio so you can see "Promoting Git
developers (written by Junio C Hamano)" where "Promoting Git
developers" is a link to the following email (yeah the link is not
valid anymore because Gmane is no more) that I wrote:

https://public-inbox.org/git/CAP8UFD1+rC0FjisSddDcyn1E_75wtBU9pEpUcQX5zNtd4zKYFQ@mail.gmail.com/

> In addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following:
>
>> Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
>> his updated strategy.
>
> This has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during
> application of both strategies. Something like this, maybe:
>
> "Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
> his updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any
> conflicts."

Ok with this change.

> Next, this is very close, but not exactly right:
>
>> Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately
>> resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge
>> commit as a merge base during the final step.
>
> This was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the
> original RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it
> right at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as
> merge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong
> merge base, that is the one computed by "git merge-base U1' U2'".
>
> Something along these lines may fit better:
>
> "Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested,
> ultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method,
> specifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the
> final step."

Ok with this change except for s/the fix to his method/a fix to his
method/ as I think it reads better with "a".

> I'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right
> here. The reference is:
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com/

Ok to add this link.

I just pushed the changes

Thanks for your comments,
Christian.

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Sergey Organov]

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Sergey,
>
[...]
> Jake wrote the article below the above line. His article summarizes
> the discussions that happened following your email that is linked to
> in the above line. The above line is actually the title of Jake's
> second article.
>
[...]
> Here "the above article" means the Jake's "branch -l: print useful
> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article above the current
> article.
>
[...]
> You call it a reference but it is actually the title of the article
> that Jake wrote. Yes, it contains a link to your email, but that is
> just because we want to make it easy and straightforward for people
> who are interested in all the discussions to find them.

Yeah, I see now, it was confusion on my side. Thanks for clarification!

The rest is also fine with me, and thanks for editorial changes!

-- Sergey

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Kaartic Sivaraam]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1520 bytes --]

Hi,

On Monday 16 April 2018 08:33 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>> Here "the above article" means the Jake's "branch -l: print useful
>> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article above the current
>> article.

Just a little correction. I suppose Chris actually meant the "rebase -i:
offer to recreate merge commits" article written by Jake and not the
"branch -l: print useful info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article.

That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,

1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the
ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article

	"A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original
	concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being
	replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil"
	merges."

I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of
replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').


2. I see a minor Markdown syntax issue in the "branch -l: print useful
info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article.

	... reworked his original patch to improve `git branch
	--list̀

Specifically, in the '--list̀' part. I guess it should be "--list`".

-- 
Kaartic

QUOTE:

“The most valuable person on any team is the person who makes everyone
else on the team more valuable, not the person who knows the most.”

      - Joel Spolsky


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Sergey Organov]

Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Monday 16 April 2018 08:33 PM, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Here "the above article" means the Jake's "branch -l: print useful
>>> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article above the current
>>> article.
>
> Just a little correction. I suppose Chris actually meant the "rebase -i:
> offer to recreate merge commits" article written by Jake and not the
> "branch -l: print useful info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article.
>
> That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,
>
> 1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the
> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article
>
> 	"A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original
> 	concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being
> 	replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil"
> 	merges."
>
> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of
> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').

It could have meant, say, "reapplied", -- we need to ask the author.

While we are at it, please also consider to replace "original concept"
by "original algorithm", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the
algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.

-- Sergey

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Jacob Keller]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Christian Couder
>> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> A draft of a new Git Rev News edition is available here:
>>>
>>>   https://github.com/git/git.github.io/blob/master/rev_news/drafts/edition-38.md
>>
>> The draft has just been updated with 2 articles contributed by Jake
>> about rebasing merges, so I am cc'ing more people involved in those
>> discussions.
>
> I find this section of the draft pretty close to my own vision of what
> and how has been discussed, except for a few issues.
>
> [all quotations below are taken from the draft]
>
>> Some discussion about --preserve-merges and compatibility with scripts
>> (i.e. should we change or fix it? or should we deprecate it?)
>> followed.
>>
>>    Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
>>    (written by Jacob Keller)
>
> What article by Jacob is actually meant here I have no idea, please
> check, as this one, and the RFC this refers to, was written by me, not
> by Jacob, and it is the outline of potential method of actually rebasing
> merges that is discussed in the next paragraph, so it likely belongs
> right after the next paragraph:

I believe he meant that the summary on git rev news was written by me,
that's all :)

>
>> After the discussions in the above article Sergey posted an outline of a
>> potential method for actually rebasing a merge (as opposed to recreating
>> it from scratch) which used a process of git cherry-pick -mN of the
>> merge onto each topic branch being merged, and then merging the result.
>
> The reference to:
>
>     Rebasing merges: a jorney to the ultimate solution (Road Clear)
>     (written by Sergey Organov)
>
> belongs here, if at all.
>
> In addition, I'd like to see a minor edition to the following:
>
>> Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
>> his updated strategy.
>
> This has been said in the context that assumed lack of conflicts during
> application of both strategies. Something like this, maybe:
>
> "Sergey replied that he thinks the solution produces the same result as
> his updated strategy, at least when none of the strategies produce any
> conflicts."
>
> Next, this is very close, but not exactly right:
>
>> Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested, ultimately
>> resulting in Sergey proposing the addition of using the original merge
>> commit as a merge base during the final step.
>
> This was not an addition, this was a fix of particular mistake in the
> original RFC that has been revealed during testing. I didn't get it
> right at first that it's original merge commit that must be used as
> merge base, so my original proposal ended up implicitly using wrong
> merge base, that is the one computed by "git merge-base U1' U2'".
>
> Something along these lines may fit better:
>
> "Further suggestions to the strategy were proposed and tested,
> ultimately resulting in Sergey proposing the fix to his method,
> specifically using the original merge commit as a merge base during the
> final step."
>
> I'd also like a reference to the final fixed [RFC v2] be added right
> here. The reference is:
>
> https://public-inbox.org/git/87r2oxe3o1.fsf@javad.com/
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> -- Sergey

Yep that all sounds right to me also.

Thanks,
Jake

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Christian Couder]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam
<kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,

Thanks for your comments!

> 1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the
> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article
>
>         "A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original
>         concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being
>         replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil"
>         merges."
>
> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of
> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').

I agree and changed it to "replayed".

> 2. I see a minor Markdown syntax issue in the "branch -l: print useful
> info whilst rebasing a non-local branch" article.
>
>         ... reworked his original patch to improve `git branch
>         --list̀
>
> Specifically, in the '--list̀' part. I guess it should be "--list`".

Yeah, it's fixed too.

Thanks,
Christian.

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Christian Couder]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the
>> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article
>>
>>       "A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original
>>       concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being
>>       replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil"
>>       merges."
>>
>> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of
>> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').
>
> It could have meant, say, "reapplied", -- we need to ask the author.

Yeah it could but I would say that it is not very likely compared to
"replayed", so I changed it to "replayed". And yeah I can change it to
something else if Jake (who is Cc'ed) prefers.

> While we are at it, please also consider to replace "original concept"
> by "original algorithm", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the
> algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.

Ok, it's now "original algorithm".

Thanks,
Christian.

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Jacob Keller]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Christian Couder
<christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 1. I see the following sentence in the "Rebasing merges: a jorney to the
>>> ultimate solution (Road Clear) (written by Jacob Keller)" article
>>>
>>>       "A few examples were tried, but it was proven that the original
>>>       concept did not work, as dropped commits could end up being
>>>       replaid into the merge commits, turning them into "evil"
>>>       merges."
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if 'replaid' is proper English assuming the past tense of
>>> replay was intended there (which I think is 'replayed').
>>
>> It could have meant, say, "reapplied", -- we need to ask the author.
>
> Yeah it could but I would say that it is not very likely compared to
> "replayed", so I changed it to "replayed". And yeah I can change it to
> something else if Jake (who is Cc'ed) prefers.
>
>> While we are at it, please also consider to replace "original concept"
>> by "original algorithm", as it didn't work due to a mistake in the
>> algorithm as opposed to failure of the concept itself.
>
> Ok, it's now "original algorithm".
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.

Replayed is accurate.

Thanks,
Jake

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Kaartic Sivaraam]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1244 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tuesday 17 April 2018 03:56 AM, Christian Couder wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam
> <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That said, I read the draft and found it good except for two minor issues,
> 
> Thanks for your comments!
> 

You're welcome!

I'm sorry to say that I read only part of the draft  when I sent my
previous email though I accidentally didn't mention it explicitly.

Now that I have read the draft completely I find a few typos in the
"Developer Spotlight: Jiang Xin" section:

1.
"... because I feel it is hard to track changes of GitHub UI and the
book will become obsolte very quickly."

obsolte -> obsolete


2.
"We also developped ..."

developped -> developed


On seeing the section "Light reading" to be empty, I thought I could
suggest something. I'm not sure whether you take Stack Overflow answers
for a light reading but I found the following answer to be interesting,

https://stackoverflow.com/a/6521223/5614968

That's all.

-- 
Kaartic

QUOTE:

“The most valuable person on any team is the person who makes everyone
else on the team more valuable, not the person who knows the most.”

      - Joel Spolsky


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Draft of Git Rev News edition 38

[Christian Couder]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:17 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam
<kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 17 April 2018 03:56 AM, Christian Couder wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your comments!
>
> You're welcome!
>
> I'm sorry to say that I read only part of the draft  when I sent my
> previous email though I accidentally didn't mention it explicitly.

No problem.

> Now that I have read the draft completely I find a few typos in the
> "Developer Spotlight: Jiang Xin" section:
>
> 1.
> "... because I feel it is hard to track changes of GitHub UI and the
> book will become obsolte very quickly."
>
> obsolte -> obsolete

Yeah.

> 2.
> "We also developped ..."
>
> developped -> developed

Sure. Both typos have been fixed. Thanks!

> On seeing the section "Light reading" to be empty, I thought I could
> suggest something. I'm not sure whether you take Stack Overflow answers
> for a light reading but I found the following answer to be interesting,
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/a/6521223/5614968

I am a bit reluctant to add random SO pages to this section. I think
we have used it to suggest real articles and I would prefer to keep it
that way. Maybe we could add another section with links from SO or
other Q & A sites, but until we decide to do that and find people
interested to regularly contribute to it, I would prefer not to add
such links.

Usually Jakub Narebski (in Cc) and a few other persons contributes to
the Other News sections ("Various", "Light Reading" and "Git tools and
sites") sometimes just before publication time, and I might contribute
a little to them too this evening or tomorrow. So it's not a big deal
if there is not much in these sections at this time.

Thanks,
Christian.