avm-tools 0.49.0 → 0.54.0

data/vendor/gems/eac_git/vendor/git-subrepo/doc/intro-to-subrepo.swim

@@ -0,0 +1,387 @@
+= Introducing Git Subrepos
+
+There is a new git command called `subrepo` that is meant to be a solid
+alternative to the `submodule` and `subtree` commands. All 3 of these commands
+allow you to include external repositories (pinned to specific commits) in
+your main repository. This is an often needed feature for project development
+under a source control system like Git. Unfortunately, the `submodule` command
+is severely lacking, and the `subtree` command (an attempt to make things
+better) is also very flawed. Fortunately, the `subrepo` command is here to
+save the day.
+
+This article will discuss how the previous commands work, and where they go
+wrong, while explaining how the new `subrepo` command fixes the issues.
+
+It should be noted that there are 3 distinct roles (ways people use repos)
+involved in discussing this topic:
+
+* *owner* — The primary author and repo owner
+* *collaborators* — Other developers who contribute to the repo
+* *users* — People who simply use the repo software
+
+== Introducing `subrepo`
+
+While the main point is to show how subrepo addresses the shortcomings of
+submodule and subtree, I'll start by giving a quick intro to the subrepo
+command.
+
+Let's say that you have a project repo called 'freebird' and you want to have
+it include 2 other external repos, 'lynyrd' and 'skynyrd'. You would do the
+following:
+
+  git clone git@github.com/you/freebird
+  cd freebird
+  git subrepo clone git@github.com/you/lynyrd ext/lynyrd
+  git subrepo clone git@github.com/you/skynyrd ext/skynyrd --branch=1975
+
+What these commands do (at a high level) should be obvious. They "clone"
+(add) the repos content into the subdirectories you told them to. The details
+of what is happening to your repo will be discussed later, but adding new
+subrepos is easy. If you need to update the subrepos later:
+
+  git subrepo pull ext/lynyrd
+  git subrepo pull ext/skynyrd --branch=1976
+
+The lynyrd repo is tracking the upstream master branch, and you've changed the
+skynyrd subrepo to the 1976 branch. Since these subrepos are owned by 'you',
+you might want to change them in the context of your freebird repo. When
+things are working, you can push the subrepo changes back:
+
+  git subrepo push ext/lynyrd
+  git subrepo push ext/skynyrd
+
+Looks simple right? It's supposed to be. The intent of `subrepo` is to do the
+right things, and to not cause problems.
+
+Of course there's more to it under the hood, and that's what the rest of this
+article is about.
+
+== Git Submodules
+
+Submodules tend to receive a lot of bad press. Here's some of it:
+
+* http://ayende.com/blog/4746/the-problem-with-git-submodules
+* http://somethingsinistral.net/blog/git-submodules-are-probably-not-the-answer/
+* http://codingkilledthecat.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/why-your-company-shouldnt-use-git-submodules/
+
+A quick recap of some of the good and bad things about submodules:
+
+Good:
+
+* Use an external repo in a dedicated subdir of your project.
+* Pin the external repo to a specific commit.
+* The `git-submodule` command is a core part of the Git project.
+
+Bad:
+
+* Users have to know a repo has submodules.
+* Users have to get the subrepos manually.
+* Pulling a repo with submodules won't pull in the new submodule changes.
+* A submodule will break if the referenced repo goes away.
+* A submodule will break if a forced push removes the referenced commit.
+* Can't use different submodules/commits per main project branch.
+* Can't "try out" a submodule on alternate branch.
+* Main repo can be pushed upstream pointing to unpushed submod commits.
+* Command capability differs across Git versions.
+* Often need to change remote url, to push submodule changes upstream.
+* Removing or renaming a submodule requires many steps.
+
+Internally, submodules are a real mess. They give the strong impression of
+being bolted on, well after Git was designed. Some commands are aware of the
+existence of submodules (although usually half-heartedly), and many commands
+are oblivious. For instance the git-clone command has a `--recursive` option
+to clone all subrepos, but it's not a default, so you still need to be aware
+of the need. The git-checkout command does nothing with the submodules, even
+if they are intended to differ across branches.
+
+Let's talk a bit about how submodules are implemented in Git. Information
+about them is stored in 3 different places (in the top level repo directory):
+
+* `.gitmodules`
+* `.git/config`
+* `.git/modules` — The submodule repo's meta data (refs/objects)
+
+So some of the information lives in the repo history (.gitmodules), but other
+info (.git/) is only known to the local repo.
+
+In addition, the submodule introduces a new low level concept, to the
+commit/tree/blob graph. Normally a git tree object points to blob (file)
+objects and more tree (directory) objects. Submodules have tree objects point
+to *commit* objects. While this seems clever and somewhat reasonable, it also
+means that every other git command (which was built on the super clean Git
+data model) has to be aware of this new possibility (and deal with it
+appropriately).
+
+The point is that, while submodules are a real need, and a lot of work has
+gone into making them work decently, they are essentially a kludge to the Git
+model, and it is quite understandable why they haven't worked out as well as
+people would expect.
+
+NOTE: Submodules /are/ getting better with each release of Git, but it's still
+an endless catch up game.
+
+== Git Subtrees
+
+One day, someone decided to think different. Instead of pointing to external
+repos, why not just include them into the main repo (but also allow them to be
+pulled and pushed separately as needed)?
+
+At first this may feel like a wasteful approach. Why keep other repos
+physically inside your main one? But if you think about it abstractly, what's
+the difference? You want your users and collaborators to have all this code
+because your project needs it. So why worry about how it happens? In the end,
+the choice is yours, but I've grown very comfortable with this concept and
+I'll try to justify it well. I should note that the first paragraph of the
+`submodule` doc suggests considering this alternative.
+
+The big win here is that you can do this using the existing git model.
+Nothing new is added. You are just adding commits to a history. You can do it
+different on every branch. You can merge branches sensibly.
+
+The git-subtree command seems to have been inspired by Git's subtree merge
+strategy, which it uses internally, and possibly got its name from. A subtree
+merge allows you to take a completely separate Git history and make it be a
+subdirectory of your repo.
+
+Adding a subtree was the easy part. All that needed to be done after that was
+to figure out a way to pull upstream changes and push local ones back
+upstream. And that's what the `git-subtree` command does.
+
+So what's the problem with git-subtree then?
+
+Well unfortunately, it drops a few balls. The main problems come down to an
+overly complicated commandline UX, poor collaborator awareness, and a fragile
+and messy implementation.
+
+Good:
+
+* Use an external repo in a dedicated subdir of your project.
+* Pin the external repo to a specific commit.
+* Users get everything with a normal clone command.
+* Users don't need to know that subtrees are involved.
+* Can use different submodules/commits per main project branch.
+* Users don't need the subtree command. Only owners and collaborators.
+
+Bad:
+* The remote url and branch info is not saved (except in the history).
+* Owners and collaborators have to enter the remote for every command.
+* Collaborators aren't made aware that subtrees are involved.
+* Pulled history is not squashed by default.
+* Creates a messy historical view. (See below)
+* Bash code is complicated.
+* Only one test file. Currently is failing.
+
+As you can see, subtree makes quite a few things better, but after trying it
+for a while, the experience was more annoying than submodules. For example,
+consider this usage:
+
+  $ git subtree add --squash --prefix=foo git@github.com:my/thing mybranch
+  # weeks go by…
+  $ git subtree pull --squash --prefix=foo git@github.com:my/thing mybranch
+  # time to push local subtree changes back upstream
+  $ git subtree push --prefix=foo git@github.com:my/thing mybranch
+
+The first thing you notice is the overly verbose syntax. It's justified in the
+first command, but in the other 2 commands I really don't want to have to
+remember what the remote and branch are that I'm using.
+
+Moreover, my collaborators have no idea that subtrees are involved, let alone
+where they came from.
+
+Consider the equivalent subrepo commands:
+
+  $ git subrepo clone git@github.com:my/thing foo -b mybranch
+  $ git subrepo pull foo
+  $ git subrepo push foo
+
+Collaborators see a file called 'foo/.gitrepo', and know that the subdir is a
+subrepo. The file contains all the information needed by future commands
+applied to that subrepo.
+
+== Git Subrepos
+
+Now is a good time to dive into the techinical aspects of the `subrepo`
+command, but first let me explain how it came about.
+
+As you may have surmised by now, I am the author of git-subrepo. I'd used
+submodules on and off for years, and when I became aware of subtree I gave it
+a try, but I quickly realized its problems. I decided maybe it could be
+improved. I decided to write down my expected commandline usage and my ideals
+of what it would and would not do. Then I set off to implement it. It's been a
+long road, but what I ended up with was even better than what I wanted from
+the start.
+
+Let's review the Goods and Bads:
+
+Good:
+
+* Use an external repo in a dedicated subdir of your project.
+* Pin the external repo to a specific commit.
+* Users get everything with a normal clone command.
+* Users don't need to know that subrepos are involved.
+* Can use different submodules/commits per main project branch.
+* Meta info is kept in an obvious place.
+* Everyone knows when a subdir is a subrepo.
+* Commandline UX is minimal and intuitive.
+* Pulled history is always squashed out locally.
+* Pushed history is kept intact.
+* Creates a clean historical view. (See below)
+* Bash code is very simple and easy to follow.
+* Comprehensive test suite. Currently passing on travis:
+
+<badge travis ingydotnet/git-subrepo>
+
+Bad:
+
+* --Subrepo is very new.-- (no longer true)
+* --Not well tested in the wild.-- (no longer true)
+
+This review may seem somewhat slanted, but I honestly am not aware of any
+"bad" points that I'm not disclosing. That said, I am sure time will reveal
+bugs and shortcomings. Those can usually be fixed. Hopefully the *model* is
+correct, because that's harder to fix down the road.
+
+OK. So how does it all work?
+
+There are 3 main commands: clone/pull/push. Let's start with the clone
+command. This is the easiest part. You give it a remote url, possibly a new
+subdir to put it, and possibly a remote branch to use. I say possibly, because
+the command can guess the subdir name (just like the git-clone command does),
+and the branch can be the upstream default branch.
+
+Given this we do the following steps internally:
+
+* Fetch the remote content (for a specific refspec)
+* Read the remote head tree into the index
+* Checkout the index into the new subdir
+* Create a new subrepo commit object for the subdir content
+* Add a state file called .gitrepo to the new subrepo/subdir
+* Amend the merge commit with this new file
+
+This process adds something like this to the top of your history:
+
+  * 9b6ddc9 git subrepo clone git@github.com:you/foo.git foo/
+  * 37c61a5 Previous head commit of your repo
+
+The entire history has been squashed down into one commit, and placed on top of
+your history.  This is important as it keeps your history as clean as possible.
+You don't need to have the subrepo history in your main project, since it is
+immutably available elsewhere, and you have a pointer to that place.
+
+The new foo/.gitrepo file looks like this:
+
+  [subrepo]
+          remote = git@github.com:you/foo.git
+          branch = master
+          commit = 14c96c6931b41257b2d42b2edc67ddc659325823
+          parent = 37c61a5a234f5dd6f5c2aec037509f50d3a79b8f
+          cmdver = 0.1.0
+
+It contains all the info needed now and later. Note that the repo url is the
+generally pushable form, rather than the publically readable (https://…) form.
+This is the best practice. Users of your repo don't need access to this url,
+because the content is already in your repo. Only you and your collaborators
+need this url to pull/push in the future.
+
+The next command is the pull command. Normally you just give it the subrepo's
+subdir path (although you can change the branch with -b), and it will get the
+other info from the subdir/.gitrepo file.
+
+The pull command does these steps:
+
+* Fetch the upstream content
+* Check if anything needs pulling
+* Create a branch of local subrepo commits since last pull
+* Rebase this branch onto the upstream commits
+* Commit the HEAD of the rebased content
+* Update/amend the .gitrepo file
+
+=== Clean History
+
+I've talked a bit about clean history but let me show you a comparison between
+subrepo and subtree. Let's run this command sequence using both methods. Note
+the differences between /both/ the command syntax required, and the branch
+history produced.
+
+Subrepo first:
+
+  $ git subrepo clone git@github.com:user/abc
+  $ git subrepo clone git@github.com:user/def xyz
+  $ git subrepo pull abc
+  $ git subrepo pull xyz
+
+The resulting history is:
+
+  * b1f60cc subrepo pull xyz
+  * 4fb0276 subrepo pull abc
+  * bcef2a0 subrepo clone git@github.com:user/def xyz
+  * bebf0db subrepo clone git@github.com:user/abc
+  * 64eeaa6 (origin/master, origin/HEAD) O HAI FREND
+
+Compare that to *subtree*. This:
+
+  $ git subtree add abc git@github.com:user/abc master
+  $ git subtree add xyz git@github.com:user/def master
+  $ git subtree pull abc git@github.com:user/abc master
+  $ git subtree pull xyz git@github.com:user/def master
+
+Produces this:
+
+  * 739e45a (HEAD, master) Merge commit '5f563469d886d53e19cb908b3a64e4229f88a2d1'
+  |\
+  | * 5f56346 Squashed 'xyz/' changes from 08c7421..365409f
+  * | 641f5e5 Merge commit '8d88e90ce5f653ed2e7608a71b8693a2174ea62a'
+  |\ \
+  | * | 8d88e90 Squashed 'abc/' changes from 08c7421..365409f
+  * | | 1703ed2 Merge commit '0e091b672c4bbbbf6bc4f6694c475d127ffa21eb' as 'xyz'
+  |\ \ \
+  | | |/
+  | |/|
+  | * | 0e091b6 Squashed 'xyz/' content from commit 08c7421
+  | /
+  * | 07b77e7 Merge commit 'cd2b30a0229d931979ed4436b995875ec563faea' as 'abc'
+  |\ \
+  | |/
+  | * cd2b30a Squashed 'abc/' content from commit 08c7421
+  * 64eeaa6 (origin/master, origin/HEAD) O HAI FREND
+
+This was from a minimal case. Subtree history (when viewed this way at least)
+gets unreasonably ugly fast. Subrepo history, by contrast, always looks as
+clean as shown.
+
+The final command, push, bascially just does the pull/rebase dance above
+described, and pushes the resulting history back. It does not squash the
+commits made locally, because it assumed that when you changed the local
+subrepo, you made messages that were intended to eventually be published back
+upstream.
+
+== Conflict Resolution
+
+The commands described above can also be done "by hand". If something fails
+during a pull or push (generally in the rebasing) then the command will tell
+you what to do to finish up.
+
+You might choose to do everything by hand, and do your own merging strategies.
+This is perfectly reasonable. The `subrepo` command offers a few other helper
+commands to help you get the job done:
+
+* `fetch` - Fetch the upstream and create a `subrepo/remote/<subdir>` ref.
+* `branch` - Create a branch of local subdir commits since the last pull,
+  called `subrepo/<subdir>`.
+* `commit` - Commit a merged branch's HEAD back into your repo.
+* `status` - Show lots of useful info about the current state of the subrepos.
+* `clean` - Remove branches, ref and remotes created by subrepo commands.
+* `help` - Read the complete documentation!
+
+== Conclusion
+
+Hopefully by now, you see that submodules are a painful choice with a dubious
+future, and that subtree, while a solid idea has many usage issues.
+
+Give `subrepo` a try. It's painless, easily revertable and just might be what
+the doctor ordered.
+
+== Reference Links
+
+* http://longair.net/blog/2010/06/02/git-submodules-explained/
+* http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/alternatives-to-git-submodule-git-subtree/

data/vendor/gems/eac_git/vendor/git-subrepo/ext/bashplus/Changes

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+version: 0.0.7
+date:    Sat Jan 23 16:28:59 PST 2016
+changes:
+- Update tooling, and copyright
+---
+version: 0.0.6
+date:    Fri Jan 23 21:05:15 PST 2015
+changes:
+- Update tooling, and copyright
+---
+version: 0.0.1
+date:    Sun Oct 27 19:07:51 PDT 2013
+changes:
+- First release.

data/vendor/gems/eac_git/vendor/git-subrepo/ext/bashplus/License

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+(The MIT License)
+
+Copyright © 2013-2016 Ingy döt Net
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
+this software and associated documentation files (the ‘Software’), to deal in
+the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
+use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
+of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
+so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

data/vendor/gems/eac_git/vendor/git-subrepo/ext/bashplus/Makefile

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+ifeq ($(MAKECMDGOALS),install)
+  ifeq "$(shell bpan version 2>/dev/null)" ""
+    $(error 'BPAN not installed. See http://bpan.org')
+  endif
+endif
+
+NAME := bash+
+LIB  := lib/$(NAME).bash
+DOC  := doc/$(NAME).swim
+MAN1 := man/man1
+MAN3 := man/man3
+
+INSTALL_LIB  ?= $(shell bpan env BPAN_LIB)
+INSTALL_DIR  ?= test
+INSTALL_MAN1 ?= $(shell bpan env BPAN_MAN1)
+INSTALL_MAN3 ?= $(shell bpan env BPAN_MAN3)
+
+default: help
+
+help:
+	@echo 'Rules: test, install, doc'
+
+.PHONY: test
+test:
+	prove $(PROVEOPT:%=% )test/
+
+install:
+	install -C -d -m 0755 $(INSTALL_LIB)/$(INSTALL_DIR)/
+	install -C -m 0755 $(LIB) $(INSTALL_LIB)/$(INSTALL_DIR)/
+	install -C -d -m 0755 $(INSTALL_MAN1)/
+	install -C -d -m 0755 $(INSTALL_MAN3)/
+	install -C -m 0644 $(MAN1)/$(NAME).1 $(INSTALL_MAN1)/
+	install -C -m 0644 $(MAN3)/$(NAME).3 $(INSTALL_MAN3)/
+
+.PHONY: doc
+doc: ReadMe.pod $(MAN1)/$(NAME).1 $(MAN3)/$(NAME).3
+
+ReadMe.pod: $(DOC)
+	swim --to=pod --complete --wrap $< > $@
+
+$(MAN1)/%.1: doc/%.swim
+	swim --to=man $< > $@
+
+$(MAN3)/%.3: doc/%.swim
+	swim --to=man $< > $@