A few bits about the RCS backends
-[[toc ]]
+[[!toc ]]
## Terminology
It follows that the HTML rendering and the CGI handling can be completely
separated parts in ikiwiki.
-What repository should [[RecentChanges]] and [[History]] work on? R1?
+What repository should [[RecentChanges]] and History work on? R1?
#### Rationale for doing it differently than in the Subversion case
>> plugin in [[todo/darcs]], if you submit one that's complete, I will
>> probably accept it into ikiwiki.. --[[Joey]]
+>>> I'd like to help make a robust darcs (2) backend. I also think ikiwiki should use
+>>> exactly one darcs repo. I think we can simplify and say conflicting web
+>>> edits are not allowed, like most current wiki engines. I don't see that
+>>> saving (so much) context in the html is necessary, then.
+>>> bma, I would like to see your code. --[[Simon_Michael]]
+>>> PS ah, there it is. Let's continue on the [[todo/darcs]] page.
+
+
## [[Git]]
Regarding the Git support, Recai says:
haven't observed any race condition regarding the concurrent blog commits
and it handles merge conflicts gracefully as far as I can see.
+(After about a year, git support is nearly as solid as subversion support --[[Joey]])
+
As you may notice from the patch size, GIT support is not so trivial to
-implement (for me, at least). Being a fairly fresh code base it has some
-bugs. It also has some drawbacks (especially wrt merge which was the hard
-part). GIT doesn't have a similar functionality like 'svn merge -rOLD:NEW
-FILE' (please see the relevant comment in mergepast for more details), so I
-had to invent an ugly hack just for the purpose.
+implement (for me, at least). It has some drawbacks (especially wrt merge
+which was the hard part). GIT doesn't have a similar functionality like
+'svn merge -rOLD:NEW FILE' (please see the relevant comment in `_merge_past`
+for more details), so I had to invent an ugly hack just for the purpose.
+
+> I was looking at this, and WRT the problem of uncommitted local changes,
+> it seems to me you could just git-stash them now that git-stash exists.
+> I think it didn't when you first added the git support.. --[[Joey]]
+
+
+>> Yes, git-stash had not existed before. What about sth like below? It
+>> seems to work (I haven't given much thought on the specific implementation
+details). --[[roktas]]
+
+>> # create test files
+>> cd /tmp
+>> seq 6 >page
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5
+>> 6
+>> sed -e 's/2/2ME/' page >page.me # my changes
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2ME
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5
+>> 6
+>> sed -e 's/5/5SOMEONE/' page >page.someone # someone's changes
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5SOMEONE
+>> 6
+>>
+>> # create a test repository
+>> mkdir t
+>> cd t
+>> cp ../page .
+>> git init
+>> git add .
+>> git commit -m init
+>>
+>> # save the current HEAD
+>> ME=$(git rev-list HEAD -- page)
+>> $EDITOR page # assume that I'm starting to edit page via web
+>>
+>> # simulates someone's concurrent commit
+>> cp ../page.someone page
+>> git commit -m someone -- page
+>>
+>> # My editing session ended, the resulting content is in page.me
+>> cp ../page.me page
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2ME
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5
+>> 6
+>>
+>> # let's start to save my uncommitted changes
+>> git stash clear
+>> git stash save "changes by me"
+>> # we've reached a clean state
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5SOMEONE
+>> 6
+>>
+>> # roll-back to the $ME state
+>> git reset --soft $ME
+>> # now, the file is marked as modified
+>> git stash save "changes by someone"
+>>
+>> # now, we're at the $ME state
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5
+>> 6
+>> git stash list
+>> stash@{0}: On master: changes by someone
+>> stash@{1}: On master: changes by me
+>>
+>> # first apply my changes
+>> git stash apply stash@{1}
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2ME
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5
+>> 6
+>> # ... and commit
+>> git commit -m me -- page
+>>
+>> # apply someone's changes
+>> git stash apply stash@{0}
+>> cat page
+>> 1
+>> 2ME
+>> 3
+>> 4
+>> 5SOMEONE
+>> 6
+>> # ... and commit
+>> git commit -m me+someone -- page
By design, Git backend uses a "master-clone" repository pair approach in contrast
to the single repository approach (here, _clone_ may be considered as the working
command to save disk space.
Note that, as a rule of thumb, you should always put the rcs wrapper (`post-update`)
-into the master repository (`.git/hooks/`) as can be noticed in the Git wrappers of
-the sample [[ikiwiki.setup]].
+into the master repository (`.git/hooks/`).
+
+Here is how a web edit works with ikiwiki and git:
+
+* ikiwiki cgi modifies the page source in the clone
+* git-commit in the clone
+* git push origin master, pushes the commit from the clone to the master repo
+* the master repo's post-update hook notices this update, and runs ikiwiki
+* ikiwiki notices the modifies page source, and compiles it
+
+Here is a how a commit from a remote repository works:
+
+* git-commit in the remote repository
+* git-push, pushes the commit to the master repo on the server
+* (Optionally, the master repo's pre-receive hook runs, and checks that the
+ update only modifies files that the pushing user is allowed to update.
+ If not, it aborts the receive.)
+* the master repo's post-update hook notices this update, and runs ikiwiki
+* ikiwiki notices the modifies page source, and compiles it
## [[Mercurial]]
revision with conflict markers to the repository. It then returns the text to the
user for cleanup. This is less neat than it could be, in that a conflict marked
revision gets committed to the repository.
+
+## [[bzr]]