From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:16:05 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Added a custodian status page to denx.de/UBoot In-Reply-To: <000201c7776d$fde43300$821ba8c0@Emea.Arm.com> References: <000201c7776d$fde43300$821ba8c0@Emea.Arm.com> Message-ID: <4614E885.6090702@smiths-aerospace.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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: Now I can simply reply "RTFM" (as if /that/ ever worked ;-). gvb