From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jun 03 11:13:28 2020 Received: (at 41604) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Jun 2020 15:13:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44387 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jgV55-0000Gs-Mn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:13:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53924) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jgV53-0000Ge-DH for 41604@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:13:25 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43242) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jgV4x-000706-V7; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:13:19 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=41494 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jgV4w-0004Me-Mc; Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:13:19 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: John Soo Subject: Re: bug#41604: guix pull impossible after rebasing a local repository References: <87zh9qofw7.fsf@asu.edu> <87a71kqyzw.fsf@gnu.org> <878sh41cx5.fsf@asu.edu> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 16 Prairial an 228 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 17:13:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: <878sh41cx5.fsf@asu.edu> (John Soo's message of "Wed, 03 Jun 2020 06:44:54 -0700") Message-ID: <87img8mbci.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 41604 Cc: 41604@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello, John Soo skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> (This can be overridden this by passing =E2=80=98--allow-downgrades=E2= =80=99.) > > Does '--allow-downgrades' support unrelated git histories? I tried that > flag and it did not work. It supports unrelated Git histories. It could really be called =E2=80=98--allow-anything=E2=80=99 but I thought it=E2=80=99d be less descr= iptive. :-) If you hit a problem with that, please report it (perhaps I just overlooked it in the other issue.) > I have branches based on master in savannah that contain specific patch > sets associated to patch requests upstream. I think I have 3 or 4 right > now. My patches are also in the branch I have in channels.scm. I do > that for a few reasons: > > 1. To test the patches > 2. To workaround or use bugs/features/packages I want but are not upstrea= m yet. > > That means I tend to want to use my patches whether or not they are > upstream yet. In fact I stopped working on my channel because it was so > easy to just make patches on upstream to contribute back. > > It can take many months for patches to be merged. That is expected > since we are all volunteers. Rebasing the patches is the easiest way to > keep them up to date so they can be applied cleanly. Yes. > There are two design and community goals I love about Guix: hackability > and inclusivity. I feel that disallowing linear history makes the > easiest way to contribute to, hack on, and participate in Guix much > harder without proper support. For instance: instead of making patches > on top of upstream it is now easier just to work on my channel. > > Certainly some tradeoffs should be made for security and I think your > recent commit authentication work does that elegantly. Perhaps we can > easily have hackability and security with a flag like --allow-downgrades > called --allow-unrelated that allows the rebase workflow. Interesting, I hadn=E2=80=99t thought about how this mechanism would give an incentive to have a channel vs. contributing directly upstream. Normally, =E2=80=98--allow-downgrades=E2=80=99 does exactly what you need, = at least that=E2=80=99s the intent. I=E2=80=99d argue that it=E2=80=99s also reason= able to use it in this case because obviously you know what you=E2=80=99re doing, and you=E2= =80=99re pulling from a local Git repository, so that=E2=80=99s fine. >> Alternately, if you like to have linear history (for example because you >> intend to eventually submit your patches upstream), you could use >> TopGit, which roughly allows you to version-control your rebases. > > Hmm. I am unaware of TopGit but I find rebasing to be the simplest and > easiest way to do my work. I'll look into it but I would rather not have > to use another tool for simplicity's sake. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.