Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:39:32 +0200 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: what's the Correct git update method keeping local changes Message-ID: <CANCZdfrBtepZExuupfNPGLsJ_S_DzZ9i_ezNEC_SETDFSk4oJw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ZCJct8nsBSABpKOL@int21h> References: <ZCJct8nsBSABpKOL@int21h>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 5:19 AM void <void@f-m.fm> wrote: > Hello hackers@ > > I looked in the porters and developers handbooks and couldn't find > reference > to a Correct method of working with git, poudriere, the ports tree and > local changes for a use case like mine. > I use the rebase workflow for pending ports commit work. Each change is a commit that I'm "curating" for later. I update main and then rebase -i in case there is anything weird I need to do. This is true for changes I get from bz or stuff I'm working on. This aversion dates back to mercurial patch queues / stash screwing me over a few times 15 or 20 years ago.. Warner Right now my workflow looks like this: > > 1. apply patch either with patch -p0 < patchfile or git apply from the > top of the ports tree > 2. git stash > 3. poudriere ports -u -q > 4. git stash pop > 5. run the poudriere build > > then, subsequent poudriere builds need steps 2-5 repeated. > > I'm wary of git merge/apply because i'm not a dev and so don't want to push > changes. but I want to update the ports tree for poudriere with local > changes > keeping them local. > > What's the best way? > -- > > [-- Attachment #2 --] <div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 5:19 AM void <<a href="mailto:void@f-m.fm">void@f-m.fm</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello hackers@<br> <br> I looked in the porters and developers handbooks and couldn't find reference<br> to a Correct method of working with git, poudriere, the ports tree and<br> local changes for a use case like mine.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I use the rebase workflow for pending ports commit work. Each change is a commit that I'm "curating" for later. I update main and then rebase -i in case there is anything weird I need to do.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is true for changes I get from bz or stuff I'm working on.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This aversion dates back to mercurial patch queues / stash screwing me over a few times 15 or 20 years ago.. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Warner</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Right now my workflow looks like this:<br> <br> 1. apply patch either with patch -p0 < patchfile or git apply from the <br> top of the ports tree<br> 2. git stash<br> 3. poudriere ports -u -q<br> 4. git stash pop<br> 5. run the poudriere build<br> <br> then, subsequent poudriere builds need steps 2-5 repeated.<br> <br> I'm wary of git merge/apply because i'm not a dev and so don't want to push<br> changes. but I want to update the ports tree for poudriere with local changes<br> keeping them local.<br> <br> What's the best way?<br> -- <br> <br> </blockquote></div></div></div>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfrBtepZExuupfNPGLsJ_S_DzZ9i_ezNEC_SETDFSk4oJw>