Part of the maintainer's job is to keep up-to-date and publish the
'amlog' which stores a mapping between a patch's 'Message-Id' e-mail
header and the commit generated by applying said patch.
But our Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt does not mention the amlog,
or the scripts which exist to help the maintainer keep the amlog
up-to-date.
(This bit me during the first integration round I did as interim
maintainer[1] involved a lot of manual clean-up. More recently it has
come up as part of a research effort to better understand a patch's
lifecycle on the list[2].)
Address this gap by briefly documenting the existence and purpose of the
'post-applypatch' hook in maintaining the amlog entries.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/Y19dnb2M+yObnftj@nand.local/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAJoAoZ=4ARuH3aHGe5yC_Xcnou_c396q_ZienYPY7YnEzZcyEg@mail.gmail.com/
Suggested-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When a patch series happened to look interesting to the maintainer
but is not ready for 'next', it is applied on a topic branch and
merged to the 'seen' branch to keep an eye on it. In an ideal
world, the participants give reviews and the original author
responds to the reviews, and such iterations may produce newer
versions of the patch series, and at some point, a concensus is
formed that the latest round is good enough for 'next'. Then the
topic is merged to 'next' for inclusion in a future release.
In a much less ideal world we live in, however, a topic sometimes
get stalled. The original author may not respond to hanging review
comments, may promise an update will be sent but does not manage to
do so, nobody talks about the topic on the list and nobody builds
upon it, etc.
Following the recent trend to document and give more transparency to
the decision making process, let's set a deadline to keep a topic
still alive, and actively discard those that are inactive for a long
period of time.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Forgot to mention that the preformatted documentation repositories
are updated every time the master branch of the project advances.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some "implementation details" of how I perform these integration
tasks day to day have changed since the document was originally
written. Update to reflect the way things are currently done.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "policy" part is more important than the "daily operation" part
in that it establishes why certain maintainer tasks exist and are
performed the way they are.
The text briefly touches the role each integration branches play in
the workflow, but does not give the whole picture of what happens in
a single development cycle using these branches. Extend the
description to describe a whole development cycle.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In a similar spirit as the previous commit, the 'seen' branch gets
rebuilt by reintegrating topics between 'jch' and the (old) tip of
'seen'.
Update the instructions on how to generate Meta/redo-seen.sh for the
first time to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Rebuilding the 'jch' branch begins by reintegrating any topics between
'master' and 'jch', not 'master' and 'seen'.
In the maintainer guide, the documentation isn't quite right, since the
initial input to Meta/Reintegrate is "master..seen", not "master..jch".
This can lead to confusing results when generating the Meta/redo-jch.sh
script for the first time.
Additionally, rebuilding 'jch' takes place in two steps. First, running
the script up to the first "### match next" cut-line, and then comparing
the result with what's on 'next' (i.e. with "git diff jch next"). Then,
the remaining set of topics get merged down to 'jch' (which aren't on
'next') by running the entire "redo-jch.sh" script.
Clarify the documentation to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
The Meta/redo-jch.sh script is generated a few lines earlier by running:
$ Meta/Reintegrate master..seen >Meta/redo-jch.sh
But the resulting script is not necessarily executable. Later mentions
of this script invoke it with sh (instead of directly), but this one is
an odd one out.
Update the documentation to invoke the Meta/redo-jch.sh script with sh
in case the maintainer has not made the script executable.
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The documentation and some tests have been adjusted for the recent
renaming of "pu" branch to "seen".
* js/pu-to-seen:
tests: reference `seen` wherever `pu` was referenced
docs: adjust the technical overview for the rename `pu` -> `seen`
docs: adjust for the recent rename of `pu` to `seen`
This patch tries to rewrite history a bit: the mail contents that have
been added to Git's source code are actually fixed, we cannot change
them in hindsight.
But as the `pu` branch _was_ renamed, and as the documents were added to
Git's source code not so much as historical record, but to describe the
status quo, let's pretend that we have a time machine and adjust the
provided information accordingly.
Where appropriate, quotes were added for readability.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some parts of the workflow described in the document has got a bit
stale with the recent toolchain improvements. Update the procedure
a bit, and also describe the convention used around SQUASH??? fixups.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We wanted to call the upcoming release "Git 1.9", with its
maintenance track being "Git 1.9.1", "Git 1.9.2", etc., but various
third-party tools are reported to assume that there are at least
three dewey-decimal components in our version number.
Adjust the plan so that vX.Y.0 are feature releases while vX.Y.Z
(Z > 0) are maintenance releases.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Update documentation to change "GIT" which was a poor-man's small
caps to "Git". The latter was the intended spelling.
Also change "git" spelled in all-lowercase to "Git" when it refers
to the system as the whole or the concept it embodies, as opposed to
the command the end users would type.
* ta/doc-no-small-caps:
Documentation: StGit is the right spelling, not StGIT
Documentation: describe the "repository" in repository-layout
Documentation: add a description for 'gitfile' to glossary
Documentation: do not use undefined terms git-dir and git-file
Documentation: the name of the system is 'Git', not 'git'
Documentation: avoid poor-man's small caps GIT
Describe tools for automation that were invented since this
document was originally written.
* jc/doc-maintainer:
howto/maintain: document "### match next" convention in jch/pu branch
howto/maintain: mark titles for asciidoc
Documentation: update "howto maintain git"
The flow described in the document is still correct, but over time I
have automated various parts of the workflow with tools and their
use was not explained at all.
Update it and outline the use of two key scripts from the 'todo'
branch, "Reintegrate" and "cook".
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These were not originally meant for asciidoc, but they are already
so close. Mark them up in asciidoc.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
A few more parts of this document is stale that needs updating
to reflect the reality, but I do not regularly rebase topics that
are only in "pu" anymore, which may be noteworthy for a commit.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Junio C Hamano