Switch to target branch

[jasp00]

Allow switches among branches without removing the local repository, per #198 (comment).

Do not merge until the task that updates CONTRIBUTORS is fixed.

[jasp00]

#215 should be tested first.

[tresf]

Do not merge until the task that updates CONTRIBUTORS is fixed.

If you just keep it maintenance-tasks repo, we can merge this anytime, right?

[jasp00]

If you just keep it maintenance-tasks repo, we can merge this anytime, right?

Correct. You may merge.

[tresf]

@jasp00 latest error:

M       doc/CONTRIBUTORS
Already on 'maintenance-test'
Your branch is behind 'origin/maintenance-test' by 1 commit, and can be fast-forwarded.
error: Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by merge:
        doc/CONTRIBUTORS
Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can merge.
Aborting

[jasp00]

OK, there are many possible errors to recover from. I will wipe out the local repository on error for the sake of simplicity.

[tresf]

I will wipe out the local repository on error for the sake of simplicity.

What is the difference between that and forcing the commit through?

[jasp00]

What is the difference between that and forcing the commit through?

Do you mean to force git merge? How do you do that?

Also, git checkout may fail.

[tresf]

I think this will do it if we call it immediately following the fetch...

git reset --hard origin/$BRANCH

It won't merge origin's HEAD but rather clobber whatever the webserver has.

Since we are overwriting the entire file each job, each time, this should be OK and will only pull deltas without forcing a clone every time.

[jasp00]

git reset --hard origin/$BRANCH

But this forces to run the tasks every time. You cannot detect if you were up-to-date this way.

[tresf]

You cannot detect if you were up-to-date this way.

Good point but won't committing an identical file commit nothing?

[jasp00]

won't committing an identical file commit nothing?

I do not know why you make this question. You usually cannot commit without changes.

[tresf]

I do not know why you make this question.

Because it fixes the problem, moving Already up to date to something like no changes added to commit, no?

[jasp00]

moving Already up to date to something like no changes added to commit

What git sequence do you suggest to avoid the execution of the tasks?

[tresf]

What git sequence do you suggest to avoid the execution of the tasks?

I don't see any harm in execution each time. Do you?

[jasp00]

I don't see any harm in execution each time. Do you?

I do. The advantage of this system is that we can add many tasks, so they should not be executed each hour needlessly. On error, it is better to discard the environment and start from scratch.

[tresf]

so they should not be executed each hour needlessly

You're talking about a few CPU cycles and hourly is overkill, we could just as easily switch it to daily. However you want to tackle this is fine, but the current process is broken and in the meantime we're without CONTRIBUTORS until it's fixed.