[GRASS-dev] svn merge usage

neteler · January 13, 2015, 1:24pm

Hi devs,

perhaps it is not needed to use "svn merge" for the trivial backports.
Otherwise we'll end up with pages of rev tags in the relbranch
shortly.
I would suggest to only use it in case of substantial changes (be many
or be important ones).

Just my 0.02 cents,
Markus

wenzeslaus · January 13, 2015, 3:47pm

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

Hi devs,

perhaps it is not needed to use "svn merge" for the trivial backports.
Otherwise we'll end up with pages of rev tags in the relbranch
shortly.
I would suggest to only use it in case of substantial changes (be many
or be important ones).

svn merge is quite convenient with scripts written by Hamish. Doing it by

hand will make backports even more painful then their are now. There was
some possibility to remove the merge information from the commit, right?
Wouldn't this by satisfactory solution to what you want? (It would be
different with Git...)

Just my 0.02 cents,

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

martinl · January 13, 2015, 3:52pm

Hi,

2015-01-13 16:47 GMT+01:00 Vaclav Petras <wenzeslaus@gmail.com>:

hand will make backports even more painful then their are now. There was
some possibility to remove the merge information from the commit, right?

I used that in the past [1], but AFAIU we decided to keep
svn:mergeinfo part of commits, so I locally commented that line.

Martin

[1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa

neteler · January 13, 2015, 4:34pm

On Jan 13, 2015 4:52 PM, “Martin Landa” <landa.martin @gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I used that in the past [1], but AFAIU we decided to keep
svn:mergeinfo part of commits, so I locally commented that line.

I would like to revise my opinion given the accumulated experience

For small change like msg cosmetics the merge info adds rather noise than anything useful. In some months we’ll have pages of merge info tags…

Perhaps we add a flag to the nice merge script to make the merge info optimal?

Markus

Martin

[1] http://trac.osgeo.org /grass/browser/grass-addons /tools/svn-merge.sh #L26

–
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz /gwiki /Landa
http://gismentors.eu /mentors/

annakrat · January 13, 2015, 5:01pm

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

On Jan 13, 2015 4:52 PM, "Martin Landa" <landa.martin
<landa.martin@gmail.com>@ <landa.martin@gmail.com>gmail.com
<landa.martin@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I used that in the past [1], but AFAIU we decided to keep
> svn:mergeinfo part of commits, so I locally commented that line.

I would like to revise my opinion given the accumulated experience

For small change like msg cosmetics the merge info adds rather noise than
anything useful. In some months we'll have pages of merge info tags...

just wondering, where exactly do you see these pages of merge info tags?

Anna

Perhaps we add a flag to the nice merge script to make the merge info
optimal?

Markus

> Martin
>
> [1] http://
<http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26>
trac.osgeo.org
<http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26>
/grass/browser/grass-
<http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26>
addons
<http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26>
/tools/svn-
<http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26>
merge.sh
<http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26>
#L26
<http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/browser/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh#L26>
>
> --
> Martin Landa
> http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa>geo\.fsv\.cvut\.cz
<http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa>/ <http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa>
gwiki <http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa>/Landa
<http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa>
> http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa>gismentors\.eu
<http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa>/mentors/
<http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa>

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

martinl · January 13, 2015, 5:09pm

2015-01-13 18:01 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com>:

just wondering, where exactly do you see these pages of merge info tags?

eg. http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-commit/2015-January/034799.html

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa

wenzeslaus · January 14, 2015, 6:16am

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>
wrote:

2015-01-13 18:01 GMT+01:00 Anna Petrášová <kratochanna@gmail.com>:
> just wondering, where exactly do you see these pages of merge info tags?

eg. http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-commit/2015-January/034799.html

Trac is showing it quite nicely. But I guess that this is just another SVN

feature which nobody wants anymore. We can do whatever as long as we have
script which will do it. The `svn propdel...` is not really good because it
deletes, so it creates a diff if something is already there. I think that's
the reason Martin was forced to comment it out in his script. I did `svn
revert .` to get rid of any changes in properties but this will not work
when you changed some files in root directory I guess.

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

martinl · January 14, 2015, 8:29am

Hi,

2015-01-14 7:16 GMT+01:00 Vaclav Petras <wenzeslaus@gmail.com>:

the reason Martin was forced to comment it out in his script. I did `svn
revert .` to get rid of any changes in properties but this will not work
when you changed some files in root directory I guess.

use

svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .

instead. Martin

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa

wenzeslaus · January 14, 2015, 2:45pm

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi,

2015-01-14 7:16 GMT+01:00 Vaclav Petras <wenzeslaus@gmail.com>:
> the reason Martin was forced to comment it out in his script. I did `svn
> revert .` to get rid of any changes in properties but this will not work
> when you changed some files in root directory I guess.

use

svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .

This deletes all mergeinfos, so you got a large diff when you executed.

You are saying that this is ok, i.e. we want to get rid of the infos?

instead. Martin

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa

Glynn_Clements1 · January 15, 2015, 7:36am

Vaclav Petras wrote:

> svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .
>
> This deletes all mergeinfos, so you got a large diff when you executed.

You are saying that this is ok, i.e. we want to get rid of the infos?

Deleting the svn:mergeinfo property is probably safe, as we're
unlikely to ever merge entire branches.

svn:mergeinfo is used to prevent a commit from being merged twice.
It's more useful in the case where branches eventually end up getting
merged back into the trunk (or their "parent" branch) in their
entirety.

If you merge a specific commit from a branch (cherry-pick), the
revision number is added to the target's svn:mergeinfo property. If
you subsequently merge the entire branch, any commits specified by the
svn:mergeinfo property will be skipped.

If you delete the svn:mergeinfo property, any subsequent merge will
attempt to apply the changes a second time, which will fail
(hopefully; if it succeeds, the result is unlikely to something you
would want).

This isn't like to be an issue if you only ever merge individual
commits (I'm assuming that you aren't going to explicitly ask for a
specific commit to be merged a second time).

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>

wenzeslaus · January 15, 2015, 3:37pm

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
wrote:

Vaclav Petras wrote:

> svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .
>
> This deletes all mergeinfos, so you got a large diff when you executed.
>
> You are saying that this is ok, i.e. we want to get rid of the infos?

Deleting the svn:mergeinfo property is probably safe, as we're
unlikely to ever merge entire branches.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

Backported in r64193 (along with "svn propdel svn:mergeinfo ." to see
how it behaves).

It deletes all mergeinfos, so we got a large diff now [1], Trac shows it in
siple way [2]. However, next time it will remain deleted as long as we
use `propdel`,
so no large diffs will be happening and everything will be fine.

To paraphrase one of Git design rules [3]: If SVN offers some feature, be
sure not to use it.

Vaclav

[1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-commit/2015-January/035099.html
[2] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/64193g
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Git_(software)&oldid=641271361#History

wenzeslaus · February 1, 2015, 12:50am

I just did backport of r64270 and used

svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .

and I again deleted some merge infos although I deleted them (all) last time. So, am I supposed to use svn propdel or not?

http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/64380

···

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Vaclav Petras <wenzeslaus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com> wrote:

Vaclav Petras wrote:

svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .

This deletes all mergeinfos, so you got a large diff when you executed.

You are saying that this is ok, i.e. we want to get rid of the infos?

Deleting the svn:mergeinfo property is probably safe, as we’re
unlikely to ever merge entire branches.

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

Backported in r64193 (along with “svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .” to see
how it behaves).

It deletes all mergeinfos, so we got a large diff now [1], Trac shows it in siple way [2]. However, next time it will remain deleted as long as we use propdel, so no large diffs will be happening and everything will be fine.

To paraphrase one of Git design rules [3]: If SVN offers some feature, be sure not to use it.

Vaclav

[1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-commit/2015-January/035099.html
[2] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset/64193g
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Git_%28software%29&oldid=641271361#History

martinl · February 1, 2015, 9:35am

Hi,

2015-02-01 1:50 GMT+01:00 Vaclav Petras <wenzeslaus@gmail.com>:

I just did backport of r64270 and used

svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .

and I again deleted some merge infos although I deleted them (all) last
time. So, am I supposed to use `svn propdel` or not?

+1 for deleting svn:mergeinfo, so I will switch again to my original script [1].

Martin

[1] http://svn.osgeo.org/grass/grass-addons/tools/svn-merge.sh

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.eu/mentors/landa

Glynn_Clements1 · February 1, 2015, 11:32am

Vaclav Petras wrote:

I just did backport of r64270 and used

svn propdel svn:mergeinfo .

and I again deleted some merge infos although I deleted them (all) last
time. So, am I supposed to use `svn propdel` or not?

It doesn't matter. Deleting it makes it impossible to merge entire
branches, but we're probably never going to want to do that. Keeping
it has no consequences beside aesthetics.

If you feel like deleting it, then delete it.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>