Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Geert Stappers Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Messed up a salsa commit - how best to fix? Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:20:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Mon Apr 25 06:14:59 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.01 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/19902 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20220425061444.x5w4jgwkqtnrkyfq@gpm.stappers.nl Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 43 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:14:44 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <20220425061444.x5w4jgwkqtnrkyfq@gpm.stappers.nl> X-Original-References: <20220424200921.osbxxksqpumhclci@gpm.stappers.nl> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14078 On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 09:40:53PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:09:21PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 09:01:02PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Somehow I managed to really mess up a commit to python-qtconsole: the > > > upstream and pristine-tar branches do not have the upstream/5.3.0 > > > sources (the current ones). However, there's already an > > > upstream/5.3.0 tag in the repository, pointing to a commit to the > > > master branch. > > > > > > I think the simplest thing to do is to "rewrite history": delete the > > > head commits to the master branch and the 5.3.0 tags, and then > > > recommit correctly and force-push to salsa. > > > > > > Would people be OK with me doing this, > > > > I'm not OK with rewriting history. > > > > > or do you have an alternative suggestion? > > > > Accept the failure, learn from it, move on, make new mistakes, learn from them. > > > > In other words: Do not spend energy on erasing a mistake^Wlearing expirience. > > I do understand this, but now someone cloning the repository and > running "gbp buildpackage" won't be able to do so. > > I realise there is a much more minor change that would fix things: > just delete the upstream/5.3.0 tag, create the upstream/5.3.0 > pristine-tar and upstream branch contents manually, make a commit with > those and recreate the upstream/5.3.0 tag to point to those. > > Would that be acceptable? If upstream has a 5.3.1 go for 5.3.1 in Debian. If an upstream 5.3.1 will take weeks, go for 5.3.01 Groeten Geert Stappers -- Silence is hard to parse