search

ShamblrTeam / ShamblrCrawler

This is our main crawler
MIT License
0 stars 4 forks source link

History is looking wack #2

Closed johnwalker closed 10 years ago

johnwalker commented 10 years ago

It looks like some duplicates were remerged. It's not actually a problem, but it makes the history look really silly. Work can continue on the repository as normal, but for particular ease -

@tommycrush, when you're done working with the multiInsert branch, merge your changes back into master and delete the multiInsert branch. Let me know when you're done by commenting here.

Everyone: I'll mention a particular hour that I'll rewrite the history. Make sure all your commits are sync'd to the repository before then. I'll write here when I'm finished, after which you will clone this repository again. Put your old clones somewhere else where you won't accidentally work on them - either by tar'ing and deleting the originals or putting them in a closet. After this, just use your new clone and everything will be good again.

johnwalker commented 10 years ago

Oh, also - the merge tool doesn't care about differences in particular commits, but it does care about differences in source code - in this case, it's a delta of one line. So that's why the resolved merge conflicts look completely sane and easily resolvable in this case.

tommycrush commented 10 years ago

The multiinsert branch doesn't matter anymore. I thought that we were running this db wrapper on the same api fetch machine. But I noticed we're running it on "localhost", so I'm not really concerned about the network trips anymore. The current master version can stay. There's no harm in keeping multiinsert there as reference as we need it.

johnwalker commented 10 years ago

Have you looked at the git history?

johnwalker commented 10 years ago

I'm going to start rewriting at 4:00pm.

tommycrush commented 10 years ago

@johnwalker ya, I mean it's not pretty. I must have been using an old version of the repo when I was writing the "title" addition... not sure why the parent was so far back. I'd love to talk about it in person next week so I understand why it looks like this.

But to spend more than 10 minutes on making the history look nice is a waste of time right now, IMO. We don't even have a crawl running right now. That needs to be priority #1.

johnwalker commented 10 years ago

It's an easy fix after you see how it's done. The parent was way behind yours because a bunch of duplicates were stripped in the main repository, but not in your clone.

Your priority is spot on. On your side, there won't be any interruption. You'll just need to reclone after I finish.

johnwalker commented 10 years ago

OK, it's fixed. Just work on your new clones. If you have changes that haven't been commited, you can just use git format-patch to bring them back to this repository.

Remember: re-clone this repository for your work.