From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D60C433E0 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74ECD65228 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 18:24:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 74ECD65228 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=us.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Dw3X81H1Zz3cmQ for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 05:24:40 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Z1rKvIf6; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=us.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=miltonm@us.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Z1rKvIf6; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Dw3WY03NGz3cVX for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 05:24:08 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 129I2cqi039999 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:24:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=in-reply-to : from : to : cc : date : mime-version : references : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : message-id : subject; s=pp1; bh=+M8khTOVlm/c55AqmstBGXNXmYRg83/KAbWLD/ZrJxc=; b=Z1rKvIf6YfOgTNPm0KJhUREpE8bZIyrNHDbHklLV27rDcC2HxUWRGekToNFYS5Hw6T9V AVHfDHTceTf8ZdN5aJ5JC1YJNsXJZk0haBGcpxFCS2PtkqFDf2p0fBHwqqzyMYOZzF84 85h/sn5A1GeqF51nUwsiugKcTbB9qn4PwNE4mUqrEisiEh5QP47J+9gXiflHH88cFDt3 dy/93kgHjdhfgVyxYES2NlEtVz5uI1afgTvVcB8t8SvDrUjPRPNcbdut+uaC32cNpTg+ zpcBNGR1CO1asy0qyYS+zlFtRdUHhqg4ygmaTru3xC0XYXuUMKr8TffsGHMsO5rAPKOL 3A== Received: from smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com (smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com [158.85.210.110]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 375wddmacv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 13:24:05 -0500 Received: from localhost by smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com with smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com ESMTP for from ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 18:24:04 -0000 Received: from us1b3-smtp05.a3dr.sjc01.isc4sb.com (10.122.203.183) by smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com (10.122.47.50) with smtp.notes.na.collabserv.com ESMTP; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 18:24:02 -0000 Received: from us1b3-mail228.a3dr.sjc03.isc4sb.com ([10.168.214.55]) by us1b3-smtp05.a3dr.sjc01.isc4sb.com with ESMTP id 2021030918240173-633943 ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 18:24:01 +0000 In-Reply-To: From: "Milton Miller II" To: Ed Tanous Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 18:24:02 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sensitivity: Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: , <20210309135745.vgx3mjwnfnkvilxx@thinkpad.fuzziesquirrel.com>

X-Mailer: IBM iNotes ($HaikuForm 1054.1) | IBM Domino Build SCN1812108_20180501T0841_FP130 January 13, 2021 at 14:04 X-LLNOutbound: False X-Disclaimed: 18375 X-TNEFEvaluated: 1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 x-cbid: 21030918-1059-0000-0000-0000038F4D0C X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: BY=0; FL=0; FP=0; FZ=0; HX=0; KW=0; PH=0; SC=0; ST=0; TS=0; UL=0; ISC=; MB=0.119431 X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00014826; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000296; SDB=6.01515835; UDB=6.00818898; IPR=6.01298352; MB=3.00036306; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2021-03-09 18:24:03 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unsuspicious REMOTE=unsuspicious XFE=unused X-IBM-AV-VERSION: SAVI=2021-03-03 13:05:52 - 6.00012344 x-cbparentid: 21030918-1060-0000-0000-00008A024FB2 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Making the "new repo" requests go faster X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-03-09_14:2021-03-09, 2021-03-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: orgsafe X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: OpenBMC Maillist , Brad Bishop Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" On March 9, Ed Tanous wrote: >On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:32 AM Milton Miller II >wrote: >> >> On March 9, Brad Bishop wrote: >> >On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:57 AM Brad Bishop >> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 11:02:24AM -0800, Ed Tanous wrote: >> >> >On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:02 PM Ed Tanous >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> In an effort to fix these issues and more, I'd like to >propose >> >> >> creating a new repository for a "new daemon" template. >> >> > >> >> >If anyone is following this thread still, patches have been >pushed >> >> >to >> >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A=5F=5Fgerrit.openbmc- >2Dproject.xyz=5Fc=5Fopenbmc=5Fdocs=5F-2B=5F41099&d=3DDwIBaQ&c=3Djf=5FiaSHv= JObTbx-siA1 >ZOg&r=3Dbvv7AJEECoRKBU02rcu4F5DWd-EwX8As2xrXeO9ZSo4&m=3DzOJQ8qDYu5wBWzKub >6P9N-WKFD3SB3DdgsAsegfH5xQ&s=3DiLLTE=5FnLMY6TUpL-Q4U6xtZoUdNkXSDwdlMskft8 >vIU&e=3D for the >> >> >moment. As they get closer to approval, I'd like to get a new >> >> >template repo created to house the code contained in that >patch, >> >> >and >> >> >CI setup on said repo if I could. >> >> >> >> Thanks Ed! >> >> >> >> The only reason I haven't created this already was I wasn't sure >> >> what to >> >> call it. Any ideas on a name out there? >> > >> >No worries. I don't really have a strong opinion on what it's >called >> >either. The ideas I've had so far were "Sample app" or "example >> >app". >> >> >> One thing I wanted to point out when we are adopting this. >> >> Git has a feature that it purposely checks the oldest ancestor of >> the target repository against the source repository. This is a >> check that helps prevent pushing an unrelated tree. >> >> From the git push man page: >> >> -f, --force >> Usually, the command refuses to update a remote ref that >is not an >> ancestor of the local ref used to overwrite it. This >flag disables >> the check. This can cause the remote repository to lose >commits; >> use it with care. >> >> >> If we give instructions to rebase the commits when creating a new >> repository the new commit time and/or committer will cause a unique >> hash and we will not defeat this check. > >I'm not really following why this would be a concern for this kind of >thing. Sure, force push is a big hammer, and should be used with >discretion and care, but I'm not seeing why we would ever have that >problem on a new repo, regardless of if we squashed the template repo >history (which would be my preference as the template repo history is >irrelevant to a new repo) or whether we pushed it as-is with the >template repo history. I can't think of a workflow where we would >rebase, but maybe I'm missing something? > >Can you elaborate on what the exact concern is? User starts with template repository and adds content for app A. User starts with template repository adding files for content B. User accidentlly recalls pull command for repository A when=20 working in repository B. If the commits were rebased git complains. If the repositories share a common ancestor then the content=20 of A is merged into repository B. At a minimum the user has=20 unrelated content to purge. In a worse case the content of=20 the second repository is relatively small and doesn't get=20 caught in the review process. Rebasing to get an updated commit time allows this check to=20 remain effective. The Author history including timestamps=20 can be preserved. I thought about saying merge this into your repository would=20 work but then I realized there is a common ancestor in the=20 middle which may defeat the checking. milton