From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Annard Brouwer Subject: Re: Using email between 2 developers to keep git repositories in sync Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:52:40 +0100 Message-ID: <2D91636D-197A-41C8-8BB3-D5002135BF99@mac.com> References: <7A02F7D1-9EB0-43AB-96F9-DDD71D4EF5FE@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 22 23:53:22 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JHRzZ-0007IS-B5 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:53:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753607AbYAVWws (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:52:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753487AbYAVWwr (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:52:47 -0500 Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com ([17.148.16.79]:60270 "EHLO smtpoutm.mac.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753393AbYAVWwr (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:52:47 -0500 Received: from mac.com (asmtp005-s [10.150.69.68]) by smtpoutm.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout016/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m0MMqje9013068; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:52:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.42.85] ([80.71.54.130]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/asmtp005/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m0MMqeh7003178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:52:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Thank you all for your suggestions! The problem is that each of us having a local server accessible to the other is not possible. Therefore I will follow the path of sending patches by email and on releases we can synchronise using bundles. I think that's the best fit for our model of developing code semi-independently. Cheers! Annard On 22 Jan 2008, at 23:22, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > I think bundles or email or both is likely to be the correct > solution, but > you should know that you don't need a shared server if you each have a > server the other can read from. Each of you sets up a public > repository > with the same basic history, and you each have local clones of your > public > repository, and you pull from the other into your local clone and > (assuming you want to accept the other's changes) you do the merge and > push to your own public server.