Re: [be] gitting problems

[Teus Benschop]

oreo.phil wrote:
> Here's some of our problems:
>
>     * On the repository machine, if I click Synchronize local data
>       with repository, I get the error that "Can't merege the changes
>       from the repository. fatal: Entry John/7/data would be
>       overwritten by merge. Cannot merge." So is John7 the only thing
>       I would lose if I synchronize with the other choice? (repository
>       overwrites local data). In the end, instead of hitting "cancel,"
>       I did in fact choose the other choice, to get rid of this error.
Most likely it is only John chapter 7 that would be affected. If a copy 
of this chapter would be made before overwriting it, then it could be 
reviewed how much of the chapter would have been affected. I've not yet 
seen this error, but must be on the lookout for it. If you see it again, 
I would be interested in all the project data for this particular 
project, including the repository. This would be in 
~/.bibledit/projects/<problem-project>.
>    *
>
>
>     * Now when I start the program and check the git repository under
>       preferences, everything turns green except the copy and
>       synchronize setting. Is this normal? Do I need to choose
>       something every time I check this?
Yes, this is normal, because you are only viewing the settings, not 
making new settings or changing something. But actually, thinking about 
it again, I believe that improvement would be appropriate here. The 
improvement could be that, if the local and remote repository are in 
sync, then it turns green. I've submitted as task for that on 
https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/bibledit.
>     * On the other 5 machines in the workgroup, I have tried setting
>       up BE in just one administrative account. I copied the .bibledit
>       subdirectory from my repository machine into the home directory
>       of the other machines, in one of the administrative accounts. I
>       set up the permissions that the owner and the group "kita" have
>       full write and delete permissions. Others have view permissions.
>       On the administrative account of these machines, BE comes up and
>       looks good. I can see book and chapter names, and everything
>       loads fine. However the Git Setup always returns to the settings
>       on the repository machine (from which I originally copied the
>       data). If I change the git://localhost/repository to
>       git://bahasakita-bk5.papua.idb.sil.org/repository, then
>       everything works and looks like it is connecting to the repo. I
>       choose Copy in the middle and "take server data" below.
>       Everything is green. Before exiting the program, when checking
>       git setup again, it says "To Do: Cant write to the repository"
>       and it wants me to choose Copy or Sychronize again. Is this normal?
Bibledit has not been designed for a situation where several machines 
write to one and the same directory. Each machine is to have its own 
~/.bibledit directory, completey separate from the other machines. If 
not, strange things will happen, such as the ones you have seen.
>     * BUT if I exit the program, and start it again, oftentimes the
>       setting goes back to what it was before: git://localhost...  OH!
>       THIS time it didn't! Perhaps it was because I resolved the
>       problem on the repository machine with John7?
What could have happened is this. Changes to the settings are kept in 
memory till bibledit is shut down. If all of these five users write to 
the same settings on disk, then the last one that shuts down, his 
settings are written. So if the last one that you shut down had the 
repository on, then it writes it down as such. But as said abopve, this 
configuration is not supported. I am only thinking of what could have 
happened.
>     * On another account on the second machine in the work group, (a
>       non-administrative account, but a member of "kita") I just
>       brought over a link to the .bibledit folder in the
>       administrative account on that machine. BE comes up and looks
>       like it would work, but everything is blank. I can't get book
>       names or chapters to show. The project that we are trying to
>       share doesn't show, and the non-editable projects that are part
>       of the database in the administrative account don't show.
>       Obviously something is wrong with permissions. I can change the
>       git setup as above, and it acts like it would work, turning
>       icons green. But after I click OK, there still are no fonts.
>       Does this mean that every single user will have to have a full
>       .bibledit folder? My .bibledit folder is huge because I have so
>       many editable and non-editable texts.
Yes, it means that every single user has to have the full .bibledit folder.
>     * Also, another problem. When I changed permissions on folders,
>       trying to free up the permissions so that the other accounts
>       could read projects in the admin account, it seems to have
>       changed most of my projects to be considered as editable
>       projects. (This is when viewed back in the admin account.) So
>       should I use BE to change them back to the right
>       editable/non-edit status?
This also would have been caused by using the shared .bibledit 
directory. Other weird things are expected to happen, one of them beign 
that if one user saves a chapter, and this chapter was still in memory 
at the other user, the last save is kept. When collaborating normally 
through git, then git tries to merge these properly. I am sure other 
unheard-of things will turn up in this configuration.
> I would like to set up our workgroup to use Edubuntu and set up the 
> six machines like a classroom, where five machines would just be 
> slaves of the one machine. In this case, would it mean that we would 
> still use git? Can you give us any information that will help us in that?
Yes, you can still use git. Each slave has its own .bibledit directory. 
The master computer could run the repository and the other ones could 
connect. If you'd like the slaves not to be able to make changes, then 
you could set their projects as not editable. But these still should 
receive the changes from the master.

Teus.