diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'third_party/git/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | third_party/git/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt | 449 |
1 files changed, 449 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/third_party/git/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt b/third_party/git/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ca4378740c --- /dev/null +++ b/third_party/git/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt @@ -0,0 +1,449 @@ +From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> +Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:32:55 -0800 +Subject: Addendum to "MaintNotes" +Abstract: Imagine that Git development is racing along as usual, when our friendly + neighborhood maintainer is struck down by a wayward bus. Out of the + hordes of suckers (loyal developers), you have been tricked (chosen) to + step up as the new maintainer. This howto will show you "how to" do it. +Content-type: text/asciidoc + +How to maintain Git +=================== + +Activities +---------- + +The maintainer's Git time is spent on three activities. + + - Communication (45%) + + Mailing list discussions on general design, fielding user + questions, diagnosing bug reports; reviewing, commenting on, + suggesting alternatives to, and rejecting patches. + + - Integration (50%) + + Applying new patches from the contributors while spotting and + correcting minor mistakes, shuffling the integration and + testing branches, pushing the results out, cutting the + releases, and making announcements. + + - Own development (5%) + + Scratching my own itch and sending proposed patch series out. + +The Policy +---------- + +The policy on Integration is informally mentioned in "A Note +from the maintainer" message, which is periodically posted to +this mailing list after each feature release is made. + + - Feature releases are numbered as vX.Y.0 and are meant to + contain bugfixes and enhancements in any area, including + functionality, performance and usability, without regression. + + - One release cycle for a feature release is expected to last for + eight to ten weeks. + + - Maintenance releases are numbered as vX.Y.Z and are meant + to contain only bugfixes for the corresponding vX.Y.0 feature + release and earlier maintenance releases vX.Y.W (W < Z). + + - 'master' branch is used to prepare for the next feature + release. In other words, at some point, the tip of 'master' + branch is tagged with vX.Y.0. + + - 'maint' branch is used to prepare for the next maintenance + release. After the feature release vX.Y.0 is made, the tip + of 'maint' branch is set to that release, and bugfixes will + accumulate on the branch, and at some point, the tip of the + branch is tagged with vX.Y.1, vX.Y.2, and so on. + + - 'next' branch is used to publish changes (both enhancements + and fixes) that (1) have worthwhile goal, (2) are in a fairly + good shape suitable for everyday use, (3) but have not yet + 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 + not yet pass the criteria set for 'next'. + + - The tips of 'master' and 'maint' branches will not be rewound to + allow people to build their own customization on top of them. + Early in a new development cycle, 'next' is rewound to the tip of + 'master' once, but otherwise it will not be rewound until the end + of the cycle. + + - Usually 'master' contains all of 'maint' and 'next' contains all + of 'master'. 'pu' 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 + tagged releases, and the users are encouraged to follow it. + + - The 'next' branch is where new action takes place, and the + users are encouraged to test it so that regressions and bugs + are found before new topics are merged to 'master'. + +Note that before v1.9.0 release, the version numbers used to be +structured slightly differently. vX.Y.Z were feature releases while +vX.Y.Z.W were maintenance releases for vX.Y.Z. + + +A Typical Git Day +----------------- + +A typical Git day for the maintainer implements the above policy +by doing the following: + + - Scan mailing list. Respond with review comments, suggestions + etc. Kibitz. Collect potentially usable patches from the + mailing list. Patches about a single topic go to one mailbox (I + read my mail in Gnus, and type \C-o to save/append messages in + files in mbox format). + + - Write his own patches to address issues raised on the list but + nobody has stepped up solving. Send it out just like other + contributors do, and pick them up just like patches from other + contributors (see above). + + - Review the patches in the saved mailboxes. Edit proposed log + message for typofixes and clarifications, and add Acks + collected from the list. Edit patch to incorporate "Oops, + that should have been like this" fixes from the discussion. + + - Classify the collected patches and handle 'master' and + 'maint' updates: + + - Obviously correct fixes that pertain to the tip of 'maint' + are directly applied to 'maint'. + + - Obviously correct fixes that pertain to the tip of 'master' + are directly applied to 'master'. + + - Other topics are not handled in this step. + + This step is done with "git am". + + $ git checkout master ;# or "git checkout maint" + $ git am -sc3 mailbox + $ make test + + In practice, almost no patch directly goes to 'master' or + 'maint'. + + - Review the last issue of "What's cooking" message, review the + topics ready for merging (topic->master and topic->maint). Use + "Meta/cook -w" script (where Meta/ contains a checkout of the + 'todo' branch) to aid this step. + + And perform the merge. Use "Meta/Reintegrate -e" script (see + later) to aid this step. + + $ Meta/cook -w last-issue-of-whats-cooking.mbox + + $ git checkout master ;# or "git checkout maint" + $ echo ai/topic | Meta/Reintegrate -e ;# "git merge ai/topic" + $ git log -p ORIG_HEAD.. ;# final review + $ git diff ORIG_HEAD.. ;# final review + $ make test ;# final review + + - Handle the remaining patches: + + - Anything unobvious that is applicable to 'master' (in other + words, does not depend on anything that is still in 'next' + and not in 'master') is applied to a new topic branch that + is forked from the tip of 'master'. This includes both + enhancements and unobvious fixes to 'master'. A topic + branch is named as ai/topic where "ai" is two-letter string + named after author's initial and "topic" is a descriptive name + of the topic (in other words, "what's the series is about"). + + - An unobvious fix meant for 'maint' is applied to a new + topic branch that is forked from the tip of 'maint'. The + topic is named as ai/maint-topic. + + - Changes that pertain to an existing topic are applied to + the branch, but: + + - obviously correct ones are applied first; + + - questionable ones are discarded or applied to near the tip; + + - Replacement patches to an existing topic are accepted only + for commits not in 'next'. + + The above except the "replacement" are all done with: + + $ git checkout ai/topic ;# or "git checkout -b ai/topic master" + $ git am -sc3 mailbox + + while patch replacement is often done by: + + $ git format-patch ai/topic~$n..ai/topic ;# export existing + + then replace some parts with the new patch, and reapplying: + + $ git checkout ai/topic + $ git reset --hard ai/topic~$n + $ git am -sc3 -s 000*.txt + + The full test suite is always run for 'maint' and 'master' + after patch application; for topic branches the tests are run + as time permits. + + - Merge maint to master as needed: + + $ git checkout master + $ git merge maint + $ make test + + - Merge master to next as needed: + + $ git checkout next + $ git merge master + $ make test + + - Review the last issue of "What's cooking" again and see if topics + that are ready to be merged to 'next' are still in good shape + (e.g. has there any new issue identified on the list with the + series?) + + - Prepare 'jch' branch, which is used to represent somewhere + between 'master' and 'pu' and often is slightly ahead of 'next'. + + $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >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 + 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. + + - Now we are ready to start merging topics to 'next'. For each + branch whose tip is not merged to 'next', one of three things can + happen: + + - The commits are all next-worthy; merge the topic to next; + - The new parts are of mixed quality, but earlier ones are + next-worthy; merge the early parts to next; + - Nothing is next-worthy; do not do anything. + + This step is aided with Meta/redo-jch.sh script created earlier. + If a topic that was already in 'next' gained a patch, the script + would list it as "ai/topic~1". To include the new patch to the + updated 'next', drop the "~1" part; to keep it excluded, do not + touch the line. If a topic that was not in 'next' should be + merged to 'next', add it at the end of the list. Then: + + $ git checkout -B jch master + $ Meta/redo-jch.sh -c1 + + to rebuild the 'jch' branch from scratch. "-c1" tells the script + to stop merging at the first line that begins with '###' + (i.e. the "### match next" line you added earlier). + + At this point, build-test the result. It may reveal semantic + conflicts (e.g. a topic renamed a variable, another added a new + reference to the variable under its old name), in which case + prepare an appropriate merge-fix first (see appendix), and + rebuild the 'jch' branch from scratch, starting at the tip of + 'master'. + + Then do the same to 'next' + + $ git checkout next + $ sh Meta/redo-jch.sh -c1 -e + + The "-e" option allows the merge message that comes from the + history of the topic and the comments in the "What's cooking" to + be edited. The resulting tree should match 'jch' as the same set + of topics are merged on 'master'; otherwise there is a mismerge. + Investigate why and do not proceed until the mismerge is found + and rectified. + + $ git diff jch next + + When all is well, clean up the redo-jch.sh script with + + $ sh Meta/redo-jch.sh -u + + This removes topics listed in the script that have already been + merged to 'master'. This may lose '### match next' marker; + add it again to the appropriate place when it happens. + + - Rebuild 'pu'. + + $ Meta/Reintegrate master..pu >Meta/redo-pu.sh + + Edit the result by adding new topics that are not still in 'pu' + in the script. Then + + $ git checkout -B pu jch + $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh + + When all is well, clean up the redo-pu.sh script with + + $ sh Meta/redo-pu.sh -u + + Double check by running + + $ git branch --no-merged pu + + 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 + the tip of 'jch'. + + - Update "What's cooking" message to review the updates to + existing topics, newly added topics and graduated topics. + + This step is helped with Meta/cook script. + + $ Meta/cook + + This script inspects the history between master..pu, 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 + 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 + master" section, and topics whose commits changed their states + (e.g. used to be only in 'pu', now merged to 'next') are updated + with change markers "<<" and ">>". + + Look for lines enclosed in "<<" and ">>"; they hold contents from + old file that are replaced by this integration round. After + verifying them, remove the old part. Review the description for + each topic and update its doneness and plan as needed. To review + the updated plan, run + + $ Meta/cook -w + + which will pick up comments given to the topics, such as "Will + merge to 'next'", etc. (see Meta/cook script to learn what kind + of phrases are supported). + + - Compile, test and install all four (five) integration branches; + Meta/Dothem script may aid this step. + + - Format documentation if the 'master' branch was updated; + Meta/dodoc.sh script may aid this step. + + - Push the integration branches out to public places; Meta/pushall + script may aid this step. + +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'. + Until it matures, no part of it is merged to 'master'. + + * A topic already in 'next' can get fixes while still in + 'next'. Such a topic will have many merges to 'next' (in + other words, "git log --first-parent next" will show many + "Merge branch 'ai/topic' to next" for the same topic. + + * An unobvious fix for 'maint' is cooked in 'next' and then + merged to 'master' to make extra sure it is Ok and then + merged to 'maint'. + + * Even when 'next' becomes empty (in other words, all topics + prove stable and are merged to 'master' and "git diff master + next" shows empty), it has tons of merge commits that will + never be in 'master'. + + * In principle, "git log --first-parent master..next" should + show nothing but merges (in practice, there are fixup commits + and reverts that are not merges). + + * Commits near the tip of a topic branch that are not in 'next' + are fair game to be discarded, replaced or rewritten. + Commits already merged to 'next' will not be. + + * Being in the 'next' branch is not a guarantee for a topic to + be included in the next feature release. Being in the + 'master' branch typically is. + + +Appendix +-------- + +Preparing a "merge-fix" +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +A merge of two topics may not textually conflict but still have +conflict at the semantic level. A classic example is for one topic +to rename an variable and all its uses, while another topic adds a +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 +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 +the mechanical merge. In other words, + + $ echo $X | Meta/Reintegrate + +is roughly equivalent to this sequence: + + $ git merge --rerere-autoupdate $X + $ git commit + $ git cherry-pick -n refs/merge-fix/$X + $ git commit --amend + +The goal of this "prepare a merge-fix" step is to come up with a +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 +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 show -s --pretty=%s ;# double check + Merge branch 'ai/topic' to pu + $ edit + $ git commit -m 'merge-fix/ai/topic' -a + +Then make a reference "refs/merge-fix/ai/topic" to point at this +result: + + $ git update-ref refs/merge-fix/ai/topic HEAD + +Then double check the result by asking Meta/Reintegrate to redo the +merge: + + $ git checkout pu~5 ;# the parent of the problem merge + $ echo ai/topic | Meta/Reintegrate + $ git diff pu~4 + +This time, because you prepared refs/merge-fix/ai/topic, the +resulting merge should have been tweaked to include the fix for the +semantic conflict. + +Note that this assumes that the order in which conflicting branches +are merged does not change. If the reason why merging ai/topic +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 +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 +to move the fix to apply to the other branch, perhaps like this: + + $ mf=refs/merge-fix + $ git update-ref $mf/$the_other_branch $mf/ai/topic + $ git update-ref -d $mf/ai/topic |