isar git repository - hash changed

isar git repository - hash changed

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

Hi all,

this hash has been changed and it did not exist anymore in the repository

-    refspec: f61db1b298e2c26fef61fa8efae55e5393b5f185
+    refspec: 3849087ea7c6424b9c688518005c16ef83365528

Did it a rebase?

Best regards, R-

Re: isar git repository - hash changed

[Anton Mikanovich]

25.11.2022 02:54, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> this hash has been changed and it did not exist anymore in the repository
>
> -    refspec: f61db1b298e2c26fef61fa8efae55e5393b5f185
> +    refspec: 3849087ea7c6424b9c688518005c16ef83365528
>
> Did it a rebase?
>
> Best regards, R-
>
Hello Roberto,

This commit (f61db1b CI: expect a message about filesystem resize vom 
expand script)
has never been included into 'master' or 'next' branches. Moreover the 
patchset
will not been merged to 'next' in the current state, because it didn't 
pass CI.

The branch you can use is 'next' (or 'master' if you need more stable 
stage).
Other branches are used for development purposes and other internal needs.

Re: isar git repository - hash changed

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 07:50, Anton Mikanovich <amikan@ilbers.de> wrote:
>
> 25.11.2022 02:54, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this hash has been changed and it did not exist anymore in the repository
> >
> > -    refspec: f61db1b298e2c26fef61fa8efae55e5393b5f185
> > +    refspec: 3849087ea7c6424b9c688518005c16ef83365528
> >
> > Did it a rebase?
> >
> > Best regards, R-
> >
> Hello Roberto,
>
> This commit (f61db1b CI: expect a message about filesystem resize vom
> expand script)
> has never been included into 'master' or 'next' branches. Moreover the
> patchset
> will not been merged to 'next' in the current state, because it didn't
> pass CI.
>
> The branch you can use is 'next' (or 'master' if you need more stable
> stage).
> Other branches are used for development purposes and other internal needs.
>

Hello Anton,

 I cannot find that commit anymore

 git log --all | grep f61db1b

 Probably it was my mistake to set my project on a develop branch.

 Thanks for having specified that also the branch "next" is a stable
one and not a developing one.

 Best regards, R-

Re: isar git repository - hash changed

[Anton Mikanovich]

25.11.2022 11:05, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> Hello Anton,
>
>   I cannot find that commit anymore
>
>   git log --all | grep f61db1b
>
>   Probably it was my mistake to set my project on a develop branch.
>
>   Thanks for having specified that also the branch "next" is a stable
> one and not a developing one.
>
>   Best regards, R-

Please take a look at CONTRIBUTING.md documentation.
It wasn't updated for a long time but still can help both users and
contributors to understand how Isar being updated.

Re: isar git repository - hash changed

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:30, Anton Mikanovich <amikan@ilbers.de> wrote:
>
> 25.11.2022 11:05, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> > Hello Anton,
> >
> >   I cannot find that commit anymore
> >
> >   git log --all | grep f61db1b
> >
> >   Probably it was my mistake to set my project on a develop branch.
> >
> >   Thanks for having specified that also the branch "next" is a stable
> > one and not a developing one.
> >
> >   Best regards, R-
>
> Please take a look at CONTRIBUTING.md documentation.
> It wasn't updated for a long time but still can help both users and
> contributors to understand how Isar being updated.
>

I saw the document, the following and there is a typo about Continuous:

next is a branch for CI (Continous Integration), testing and early feedback.

means that - if a commit does not pass the CI, testing or users review
(feedback), it could be removed?

So, the "next" is not a stable branch in the sense that every hash in
it will remain forever. Isn't that right?

While in the master branch every commit (hash) remains forever. Is that right?

Best regards, R-

Re: isar git repository - hash changed

[Baurzhan Ismagulov]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 09:41:59AM +0100, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> I saw the document, the following and there is a typo about Continuous:
> 
> next is a branch for CI (Continous Integration), testing and early feedback.
> 
> means that - if a commit does not pass the CI, testing or users review
> (feedback), it could be removed?
> 
> So, the "next" is not a stable branch in the sense that every hash in
> it will remain forever. Isn't that right?
> 
> While in the master branch every commit (hash) remains forever. Is that right?

We try to keep master and next commits without history rewriting because
downstreams might be pinning those.

With kind regards,
Baurzhan

Re: isar git repository - hash changed

[Roberto A. Foglietta]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:50, Baurzhan Ismagulov <ibr@radix50.net> wrote:
[...]
> We try to keep master and next commits without history rewriting because
> downstreams might be pinning those.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:58, Anton Mikanovich <amikan@ilbers.de> wrote:
[...]
> Only after that commits are going to 'master'. It means 'next' is quite
> stable
> for use, but "no changes" state is not 100% guaranteed.

Ok, thanks. After all, nothing is granted for 100%.

I will evaluate to fork the ISAR repository under my github account
and use that for my project.

Time to time, I will check for updates without risking that something
will get broken in the meantime.

I may give it a try and revert back in case I do not like it.

Best regards, R-

Re: isar git repository - hash changed

[Anton Mikanovich]

25.11.2022 11:41, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> I saw the document, the following and there is a typo about Continuous:
>
> next is a branch for CI (Continous Integration), testing and early feedback.
>
> means that - if a commit does not pass the CI, testing or users review
> (feedback), it could be removed?
>
> So, the "next" is not a stable branch in the sense that every hash in
> it will remain forever. Isn't that right?
>
> While in the master branch every commit (hash) remains forever. Is that right?
>
> Best regards, R-

Yes, this is how it supposed to be. But currently we are checking every 
commit
on CI at least once even before applying to 'next'. And after applying 
we also
performing CI on daily basis to ensure there are no floating issues, and 
also
there are no complains from downstreams.
Only after that commits are going to 'master'. It means 'next' is quite 
stable
for use, but "no changes" state is not 100% guaranteed.