Re: [ptp-user] A command and a question about Synchronized Projects in I

[Corey Ashford <cjashfor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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