[lfs-dev] [blfs-dev] LFS and Git]

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Mar 9 21:06:42 PDT 2014

Ken Moffat wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> -----
>   #?^€^ !  I managed to send the reply to blfs instead of lfs.
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 09:16:42PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Merging is generally not needed by me, but that may be the reason Armin
>> wants to move to git.  I can't remember the last time I needed to do a
>> merge.
>   My back story : I used to contribute to CLFS, but I dropped out
> when it went to git beccause at that stage i only knew enough to
> break things.  Since then, I've moved my own buildscripts to git.
> I've broken things a couple of times in my own merges, but now I
> feel fairly confident in using it.  For me, git merge --no-ff -m
> "some message" lets me put a message in my git log (probably not
> relevant ot LFS/BLFS), and when merges fail (e.g. because I put a
> fix in my master branch, then later put a better fix in my
> development branch), "git status ; git diff file-with-problem"shows
> what needs to be fixed.
>   The great benefit of git is in branches - in svn, a branch is "cast
> in stone" and is a PITA.  In git, branches are just pointers.  If
> you want to maintain a stable branch, you can cherry-pick specific
> commits from another branch (such as master).  To do that on LFS or
> BLFS, I suspect that things might work better if date changes
> in general.ent were separated from other changes - I think CLFS has
> usually done that.  There have been at least two occasions in the
> past when I've thought about branching BLFS, but in svn it didn't
> seem worth the pain.

cd ~/BLFS/trunk/BOOK
cd ../../branches
svn cp ../trunk/BOOK my-new-branch
#edit as required
svn commit -m "Added new branch.."

Well maybe you can do that in git in one line, but how often is that 
needed?  The only time I need that is to do a release.

>   As has been said, with git you can stash changes, work on fixing
> something else, and then go back to them.  That is often a great
> benefit.
>   The big benefit of svn is increasing decimal revision numbers.
> Mercurial seems to provide that (as well as hashed commit numbers),
> but I cannot see any reason to move to mercurial.  When CLFS changed
> to git, it appeared that a "gatekeeper" was needed to pull changes,
> but freedesktop.org, or at least the xorg parts, appear to have many
> people commiting to the master branches.
>   I understand why alfs is a good place to try out changes, but it
> isn't something I can use (/sources on my development machines is an
> nfs mount from my server, I _really_ don't fancy the time it would
> take to build there).
>   Also, I think Igor has an svn->git feed to github ?  I would
> welcome his comments.

Me too.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list