Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Git pull ack emails.. | From | Jacek Anaszewski <> | Date | Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:41:28 +0200 |
| |
On 10/23/2018 02:13 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 23 October 2018 at 10:41, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> So I've obviously started pulling stuff for the merge window, and one >> of the things I noticed with Greg doing it for the last few weeks was >> that he has this habit (or automation) to send Ack emails when he >> pulls. >> >> In fact, I reacted to them not being there when he sent himself his >> fake pull messages. Because he didn't then send himself an ack for >> having pulled it ;( >> >> And I actually went into this saying "I'll try to do the same". >> >> But after having actually started doing the pulls, I notice how it >> doesn't work well with my traditional workflow, and so I haven't been >> doing it after all. >> >> In particular, the issue is that after each pull, I do a build test >> before the pull is really "final", and while that build test is >> ongoing (which takes anything from a few minutes to over an hour when >> I'm on the road and using my laptop), I go on and look at the *next* >> pull (or one of the other pending ones). >> >> So by the time the build test has finished, the original pull request >> is already long gone - archived and done - and I have moved on. >> >> End result: answering the pull request is somewhat inconvenient to my >> flow, which is why I haven't done it. >> >> In contrast, this email is written "after the fact", just scripting >> "who did I pull for and then push out" by just looking at the git >> tree. Which sucks, because it means that I don't actually answer the >> original email at all, and thus lose any cc's for other people or >> mailing lists. That would literally be done better by simple >> automation. >> >> So I've got a few options: >> >> - just don't do it >> >> - acking the pull request before it's validated and finalized. >> >> - starting the reply when doing the pull, leaving the email open in a >> separate window, going on to the next pull request, and then when >> build tests are done and I'll start the next one, finish off the old >> pending email. >> >> and obviously that first option is the easiest one. I'm not sure what >> Greg did, and during the later rc's it probably doesn't matter, >> because there likely simply aren't any overlapping operations. >> >> Because yes, the second option likely works fine in most cases, but my >> pull might not actually be final *if* something goes bad (where bad >> might be just "oops, my tests showed a semantic conflict, I'll need to >> fix up my merge" to "I'm going to have to look more closely at that >> warning" to "uhhuh, I'm going to just undo the pull entirely because >> it ended up being broken"). >> >> The third option would work reliably, and not have the "oh, my pull is >> only tentatively done" issue. It just adds an annoying back-and-forth >> switch to my workflow. >> >> So I'm mainly pinging people I've already pulled to see how much >> people actually _care_. Yes, the ack is nice, but do people care >> enough that I should try to make that workflow change? Traditionally, >> you can see that I've pulled from just seeing the end result when it >> actually hits the public tree (which is yet another step removed from >> the steps above - I do build tests between every pull, but I generally >> tend to push out the end result in batches, usually a couple of times >> a day). >> >> Comments? > > Welcome back! > > I have no strong opinions, in regards to the acks. > > Your current approach, with no ack at all, just means that I have to > do "git remote update" a few times, which I probably would have done > anyways. So, to me, feel free to pick whatever option that makes the > life easiest for you.
Same for me, I do the update anyway to see if and how my pull request has been merged.
-- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
| |