Re: git commit/push and VC

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:29:30 +0700
> From: Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>
> Cc: Emacs developers <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> > GitForEmacsDevs says this:
> >
> >    If you are a committer, you can merge to the upstream master directly.
> >
> >    First, update your repository:
> >
> >          cd $DEVHOME/emacs
> >          git checkout master
> >          git pull
> >          git merge TASKNAME
> >          git push
> >
> >    Run the tests:
> >
> >          make check
> >
> >    and then commit
> >
> >          git status
> >          git commit -m "fixes debbugs:12345"
> >
> >    which merges all your new commits to the upstream master.
> >
> > I don't understand why `git commit' follows `git push' here (or why
> > there isn't another `git push' after `git commit').
> 
> Indeed, the instruction quoted above is strange.

These instructions were simply wrong.  You will see that I raised some
of these issues as early as last January:

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00790.html

but nothing was done about that.

I now fixed the instructions as best I could; please read and comment.

There are still issues that I'd like to be sure about before I fix
them.  Would people please comment on these:

  . the instructions say that a "git commit" is necessary even when
    the merge is without conflicts, which AFAIK is incorrect with Git

  . do we want to tell there that "pull --rebase" is recommended? that
    would solve some of the issues the instructions are forced to
    explain in so many words, which unnecessarily complicates them

  . do we want to explicitly recommend 2 different clones, one each
    for master and the release branch? there's nothing in the
    instructions about this, or about working with 2 divergent
    branches in general

  . GitQuickStartForEmacsDevs advises to use "git ci -a"; why not
    suggest the same in GitForEmacsDevs? it seems a simpler setup

  . there's a link to GitForEmacsCasualDevs, which doesn't exist.  Do
    we need yet another, 3rd set of instructions, in addition to the 2
    we already have?