On 04/27/2011 03:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
On 04/27/2011 02:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:I'm curious how many people reading this feel this is "basic git". Anyone
A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to
avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole bunch of -contrib repos. However,
maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:
Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to
poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it from his local repo:
willing to admit this was the first time they have seen a targeted branch
fetch used to avoid a larger download? If everyone is comfortable with this,
fine. If not, we should consider the impact of this type of access on our
My biggest complaint with this is the lack of self discovery from within git
git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@.../poky-contrib.git
git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
git checkout foo
without doing a git remote update. Unless tomz is online at the time to tell me
it's tomz/foo-bar, not tomz/foo_bar, then I have to go load the web browser and
check which branches are available, or resort to downloading all the objects.
I just realized another major issue I have with this approach. It
doesn't just mean that I _can_ use git fetch to get a specific branch to
avoid pulling in a massive pile of objects I don't need, it means I have
to stop using "git remote update" entirely for everything else I do in
that repository and I have to fetch all the other branches manually. The
recommended approach here is VIRAL.
I confess though, it still just feels wrong to keep unrelated source trees in
the same repository.
Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to
The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to
download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what you would do with "git remote
update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid
having to swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just
one of those "git being a pain to learn"
setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under
<keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get
their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly
possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know
This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how
often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases
but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm
sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too.
As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic,
it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user
I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
layers. And they will end up naming them something like:
And keep them checked out to the appropriate set of branches... that seems like
a lot of pain to impose on users to avoid setting up personal git repositories.
Personally, I think I would revert to my kernel.org repositories rather than try
and make this work.
Or - is my git-fu weak? Is there a better way to handle the above?
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel