Web lists-archives.com

Re: "groups of files" in Git?




> The way of Git is that a commit (snapshot) by definition describes a
> set of files (The set of all files in the project). So If you need two features
> there at the same time, you probably want it in the same commit.

Thank you, but if I wanted these two features to be in the same
commit, I would have no reasons to see them as two distinctive groups.
I mean, groups of uncommitted files.

The general problem of not having multiple features in the same code
tree is the cost of doing multiple builds and integration testing
runs.
Now I imagine there could be workaround of having two features
developed at different branches and then merging them into 3rd branch
for building/testing; however this introduces overhead of maintaining
at lest two code trees: one for "dirty changes" where I do the code
changes that are not guaranteed to be even build-able and another
"build/test" code tree. Plus merging the changes from one to another.
A bit too much, IMHO.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Nikolay Shustov
> <nikolay.shustov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have been recently struggling with migrating my development workflow
>> from Perforce to Git, all because of the following thing:
>>
>> I have to work on several features in the same code tree parallel, in
>> the same Perforce workspace. The major reason why I cannot work on one
>> feature then on another is just because I have to make sure that the
>> changes in the related areas of the product play together well.
>
> So in that case the features are not independent, but related to each other?
> In that case you want to have these things in the same working tree as
> well as in the same branch.
>
> Take a look at git.git itself, for example:
>
>     git clone git://github.com/git/git
>     git log --oneline --graph
>
> You will see a lot of "Merge X into master/maint" commits, but then
> you may want to dive into each feature by:
>
>     git log --oneline e83e71c5e1
>
> for example and then you'll see lots of commits (that were developed
> in the same branch), but that are closely related. However they are
> different enough to be in different commits. (different features, as
> I understand)
>
>> With Perforce, I can have multiple changelists opened, that group the
>> changed files as needed.
>>
>> With Git I cannot seem to finding the possibility to figure out how to
>> achieve the same result. And the problem is that putting change sets
>> on different Git branches (or workdirs, or whatever Git offers that
>> makes the changes to be NOT in the same source tree) is not a viable
>> option from me as I would have to re-build code as I re-integrate the
>> changes between the branches (or whatever changes separation Git
>> feature is used).
>
> you would merge the branches and then run the tests/integration. Yes that
> seems cumbersome.
>
>> Build takes time and resources and considering that I have to do it on
>> multiple platforms (I do cross-platform development) it really
>> denominates the option of not having multiple changes in the same code
>> tree.
>>
>> Am I ignorant about some Git feature/way of using Git that would help?
>> Is it worth considering adding to Git a feature like "group of files"
>> that would offer some virtutal grouping of the locally changed files
>> in the checked-out branch?
>
> The way of Git is that a commit (snapshot) by definition describes a
> set of files (The set of all files in the project). So If you need two features
> there at the same time, you probably want it in the same commit.
>
> If they are different enough such that you could have them independently,
> but really want to test them together, your testing may need to become
> more elaborate (test a merge of all feature branches) I would think.
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> - Nikolay