|
From: | Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: | Re: git? branch-2-2? |
Date: | Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:23:57 -0600 (CST) |
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello libtoolers,
I think that this topic should be discussed on address@hidden before the final decision because not only libtool maintainers retrieve sources and submit patches based on the version control system.
3) If yes and yes, do you agree with the proposed git policy: master should usually not contain merges except for merges from public topic branches, should we have such in the future. Generally, master should be the first to receive a patch, and stable branches should cherry-pick from master. In your local trees, you should rebase private topic branches against the upstream tree before inclusion.
I would like to see more open discussion of this since git is a sort of toolkit which can be used in radically different ways. Git is capable of supporting both cooperation and total anarchy. Besides official maintainers, we have others to worry about.
A concern about basing changes to stable branches on the master version (new term for head?) is that it seems to keep master from flourishing like it could. Perhaps it might cramp Gary's style. If this is wrong, then please explain further for the git-impaired.
If patches are retrieved from local trees, I assume that this requires that the local trees have a git server running? Otherwise patches would need to be emailed or the local tree needs to belong to a maintainer with ability to submit to the golden repository. The apparent flexibility of git is confusing to me.
Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |