From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christos Trochalakis Subject: Maintaining a fork workflows Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:23:44 +0200 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 12 10:49:51 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nfs9m-00070U-Gs for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:49:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752585Ab0BLJtq (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:49:46 -0500 Received: from poseidon.ceid.upatras.gr ([150.140.141.169]:54947 "EHLO poseidon.ceid.upatras.gr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752122Ab0BLJtp (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:49:45 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1557 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:49:45 EST Received: from mail.ceid.upatras.gr (unknown [10.1.0.143]) by poseidon.ceid.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0123DEB4862 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:23:46 +0200 (EET) Received: from localhost (europa.ceid.upatras.gr [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ceid.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92A6160CE2 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:23:46 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceid.upatras.gr Received: from mail.ceid.upatras.gr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (europa.ceid.upatras.gr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5O856fs2UjfW for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:23:46 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail-fx0-f215.google.com (mail-fx0-f215.google.com [209.85.220.215]) by mail.ceid.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4D6160CDD for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:23:46 +0200 (EET) Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so2364614fxm.28 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:23:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.103.35.5 with SMTP id n5mr665814muj.132.1265966624998; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:23:44 -0800 (PST) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hello, I have created a light fork of an upstream project and I am not quite sure which "syncing with upstream" workflow fits better. I can think of 3 solutions 1. the obvious one, merge the upstream changes on the forked branch and make the necessary modifications on the merge commit 2. Rebase upstream commits on top of the fork & make a commit with the necessary modifications 3. Cherrypick & modify upstream commits Which practice is considered better? thanks, chris