[U-Boot-Users] Added a custodian status page to denx.de/UBoot

[Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com>]

Peter Pearse wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: u-boot-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net 
>> [mailto:u-boot-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf 
>> Of Wolfgang Denk
>> Sent: 05 April 2007 01:25
>> To: Ben Warren
>> Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net; Jerry Van Baren
>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] Added a custodian status page to 
>> denx.de/UBoot
>>
>> In message <891383.24029.qm@web313.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> you wrote:
>>>> I think you should use branches on your local repository, 
>> but not  
>>>> on the custodian repo. There, I want to see no branches.
>>>>
>>> Hmmm.  I thought branches would provide an excellent way of putting 
>>> experimental code 'out there'  (i.e.
>>> code that's not intended for short-term upstream merging).  Is this 
>>> bad?
> 
> Wolfgang
> 	Now I believe I can push branches to the u-boot-arm repo 
> 
> (I was reading gu-arm as git-arm - I should use bigger fonts.....)
> 
> I was hoping to push each patch that I approved up to the u-boot-arm as a
> branch,
> for others to test.
>  
> Then I would ask you to merge from it when testing was complete.
> 
> Then I would delete that branch when merged.....
> 
> Peter

I would like to give branches a chance.  They have been supported since 
RCS (or before) so most people are familiar with the concept, if perhaps 
not the actual use.  I find branches in git are very usable and 
extremely useful.

I've added a section describing the use and status of (the) branch(es) 
in my custodian repository:
   <http://www.denx.de/wiki/UBoot/UBootFdtInfo>
Now I can simply reply "RTFM" (as if /that/ ever worked ;-).

gvb