[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [ptp-user] A command and a question about Synchronized Projects in Indigo
|
On 05/17/2011 05:22 PM, Roland Schulz wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Corey Ashford
> <cjashfor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cjashfor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I am evaluating the different remote project capabilities in PTP, and
> I'm currently looking at the "Synchronized Project" type.
>
>
> Thanks for testing and the feedback!
>
>
> I've played around with it a bit, and so far it looks pretty cool! I
> like how transparent it is in using Git (the only synchronization option
> available, it appears) to synchronize the source and target directories.
>
> There is no online help that I could find, so I had to take some guesses
> as to how to set it up, but after doing that, it sort of "just worked"
> and seems to be very fast and transparent. I even threw an existing Git
> project at it, and it worked without a hitch.
>
> One concern I have about the way it uses Git: it seems to play fast and
> loose with making commits, especially to existing Git trees. My
> intuition is that some people will find it objectionable. If I was
> working on a source tree that was maintained using Git, I think I would
> be annoyed too, that I would have to collapse perhaps tens of commits
> into one real one.
>
> I had set up something similar, that synchronizes the host and target
> source using a shared git tree. The synchronization step was postponed
> till a build was attempted, and instead of making an actual commit, a
> list of of modified+staged files is created and then rsync'd to the
> target. At some point you want to commit your changes in a series of
> one or more patches, and when you do that, you do a "git reset --hard"
> on the target side, and then pull after the commit(s) are pushed from
> the local side. This followed a "master repo" set-up, but I think you
> could adapt it for a peer-to-peer setup.
>
> I'm not suggesting that you switch to a similar system, but eliminating
> the large number of commits that are done to the tree would be a desired
> feature.
>
>
> Yes this is something on our TODO list. So far we were busy getting the
> sync to work and haven't optimized its coexistence with GIT (or other)
> version control mechanisms. The plan is to do the sync commit all in a
> special branch. Then before you want to do a real commit you would
> deactivate the sync and we would switch back to your originally branch.
> Than you can do a "real" commit (either with the EGit or the command
> line GIT).
>
> Our current thoughts on this are here:
> https://github.com/rolandschulz/PTP/issues/26
> This is just some initial thoughts. The finial implementation might be
> very different.
This sounds great. I'm happy to hear that you are thinking about this.
I had also thought about using this "sync branch" technique, but only
in retrospect after hacking together my "Git+rsync" solution :-)
- Corey