[U-Boot-Users] RFC: Custodian conventions update

[U-Boot-Users] RFC: Custodian conventions update

[Jerry Van Baren]

Hi all,

The merge window is closing.  Now that we've gotten some real git usage 
under our belts and done some non-trivial multi-repository pushing and 
pulling, I thought it would be good to memorialize some Best 
Practices[tm].  As a result, I've updated the Custodian page based on 
what worked well for me, and extrapolating slightly beyond that.

What I added is the bullet list in:
<http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/UBoot/CustodianGitTrees#Tips_for_maintaining_custodian_t>

Potentially controversial parts:
* I propose publishing a "testing" branch for not quite ready for prime 
time work-in-progress (appeared to work well for Kim)
* I propose publishing a "merge" branch for work that is ready to be 
merged when the next window opens.

I found this branch technique to work *extremely* well, keeping my 
queued but unmerged changes separate and clearly identified and allowing 
me to rebase the changes to track the master repo.  Rebasing identified 
and allowed me to fix conflicts before Wolfgang stepped in them.

Trivia: I used the branch "fdt-cmd" initially and am using "fdt" 
currently, and noticed Kim used "83xx".  If we standardize on "merge" 
(or, if someone has a better name...), it will lessen confusion and 
simplifies the instructions.  In addition, since it is difficult 
(impossible?) for custodians to remove branches from their denx.de 
subrepos, it lessens the dead branch namespace pollution.

If the above is adopted, the CustodianGitTrees page can be further 
simplified by removing redundant information, but I didn't want to 
totally rewrite the page before publishing a RFC.

Best regards,
gvb

[U-Boot-Users] RFC: Custodian conventions update

[Andy Fleming]

On 8/15/07, Jerry Van Baren <vanbaren@cideas.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Trivia: I used the branch "fdt-cmd" initially and am using "fdt"
> currently, and noticed Kim used "83xx".  If we standardize on "merge"
> (or, if someone has a better name...), it will lessen confusion and
> simplifies the instructions.  In addition, since it is difficult
> (impossible?) for custodians to remove branches from their denx.de
> subrepos, it lessens the dead branch namespace pollution.


I'm pretty sure that if you do a "git push -f" after you delete a
branch, that change will occur in the upstream repo.

Andy