Re: [PATCH 0/2] Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt: a pair of bugfixes

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 04:01:12AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 07:47:33PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > The documentation on how to use the scripts in 'todo' has a couple of
> > small typos that make it confusing when generating the Meta/redo-jch.sh
> > and Meta/redo-seen.sh scripts the first time.
> >
> > Correct these to avoid any confusion in the future.
>
> Thanks for writing these up. A little back-story: Taylor and I had
> looked at this together off-list, because the results of following the
> documentation to the letter made little sense.
>
> So both look good to me, with the giant grain of salt that I was party
> to the original head-scratching that led to the patches. Given that
> there's no urgency (unless you are hit by a bus in the next few weeks),
> it probably makes sense to queue these fixes and wait for Junio to
> review and (hopefully) merge them.

All true :-).

And indeed, if I'm hit by a bus in the next couple of weeks, I think
that whoever steps up will be clever enough to find this thread on the
list and work it out from there.

Let's hope that we don't have to go there. I'm mainly interested in
Junio's review, anyway, so I'll happily let this one sit until we hear
from him.

> There is one thing we wondered about, and I think only Junio can answer.
> The instructions after these patches yield two files, redo-jch.sh and
> redo-seen.sh. The first one has two sections separated by a "###"
> marker: the ones that are in 'next', and the ones that are in 'jch'.
> The third ones has topics that are only in 'seen' (which also contains
> all of the others).
>
> Why not have a single file with all of the topics, with two "###"
> markers? I.e., something like:

Thanks for writing our confusion up. I, too, think that this would be an
easier process to follow than juggling the topics between two files. I
could imagine that there was some circumstance that bit Junio in the
past (for which it really *is* easier to manage the set of topics broken
out across two files).

I could equally imagine the answer being, "it's always been this way",
and so the process is baked into his muscle memory. Whatever the reason
is, I'm definitely curious in the rationale behind it.

>   # build the topic list from what's in 'seen' now
>   Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo.sh
>
>   # rebuild the first part of jch, which is everything in next
>   git checkout -B master jch
>   Meta/redo.sh -c1
>
>   # now build actual next, which should end up with the same tree
>   git checkout next
>   git merge master ;# if necessary
>   Meta/redo.sh -c1 -e ;# -e to annotate any topics
>   git diff jch next ;# should be identical
>
>   # now build the rest of jch
>   git checkout jch
>   Meta/redo.sh -c2
>
>   # now build seen
>   git checkout -B seen master
>   Meta/redo.sh ;# no -c, do it all
>
> I _think_ the two are equivalent, and it seems more convenient to keep
> all of the topic names in one file (since they'd migrate across the cut
> to go from seen to jch, then jch to next). But maybe you (Junio) find it
> more convenient to keep them separate. The 'seen' list is a bit more
> fluid, and I'm sure you figured out how to copy lines between two
> different buffers in emacs. :)

Based on my own understanding of the scripts in 'todo', I agree that
they should be equivalent.

Thanks,
Taylor