[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:46:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hello!
Timothy Sample <samplet@ngyro.com> skribis:
> If you want a concrete example to think through, there’s ‘eclib’. Our
> package says it’s version “20190909”, but that’s not what upstream calls
> version “20190909”. It looks like when we packaged ‘eclib’, that tag
> pointed to commit 19e7e3e74268bf78bd9a1c4ba07597d5434fb166, but now it
> points to bfbbd7c414521e1bf5e718a2925ea8ad845a2e87.
[...]
> First, as expected, finding the original commit was painful. SWH did
> not record the old version of the tag.
It probably did: SWH archives the “history of histories”. However, our
SWH code, ‘lookup-origin-revision’, is looking at the tag found in the
latest snapshot, which is not helpful in this case.
[...]
> Second, these cases are very, very rare. (I’ve essentially checked
> every Git origin since Guix version 1.0.0, and this problem is not one
> that worries me). “Tricking Peer Review”-style problems seem to be much
> more prevalent. When tracking down a “difficult” Git origin, the first
> thing I do is grep the Guix Git history for a “oops I committed the
> wrong hash” message. I recommend we focus our energies there before
> worrying too much about replacing tags with commits or using both or
> whatever.
Agreed, it’d be nice to address, but not concern #1.
> And as a bonus, if you want to be really kind to future time travellers,
> when fixing an errant hash, please include a nice hint as to what the
> original hash was for (like a commit hash). We have commit
> ca5a791f6285b08506ccd662d5911ccf0c4d1ece in our repo, which says:
>
>> The previous hash was from the "dev" branch of the repository.
>
> I can’t find the source for the previous hash, and if I could actually
> travel through time, I would change the commit message to:
>
>> The previous hash was from commit abcd0123..., which comes from the
>> "dev" branch of the repository.
In commit 944bd79113b9c856b11dd2b40d40e0274a9f4dd9 I added an
explanation right in the source; I think that’s a transparent and clear
way of handling issues with tags modified in place.
Ludo’.
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, (continued)
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, zimoun, 2022/01/03
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2022/01/04
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, zimoun, 2022/01/04
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, zimoun, 2022/01/04
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2022/01/04
- Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, zimoun, 2022/01/04
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2022/01/01
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Mark H Weaver, 2022/01/01
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Bengt Richter, 2022/01/01
Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/01/03