From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sean Subject: Re: What's in git.git Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:09:05 -0500 Message-ID: References: <7vslqtf2p1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 09 09:42:45 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F77Ns-0007rb-6d for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:42:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965173AbWBIImS (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:42:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965184AbWBIImS (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:42:18 -0500 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp11.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.171]:39987 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP11.BAYC1.HOTMAIL.COM") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965173AbWBIImR (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:42:17 -0500 X-Originating-IP: [65.94.251.146] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Received: from linux1.attic.local ([65.94.251.146]) by BAYC1-PASMTP11.BAYC1.HOTMAIL.COM over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:44:28 -0800 Received: from guru.attic.local (guru.attic.local [10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC48644C28; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 03:09:20 -0500 (EST) To: Junio C Hamano Message-Id: <20060209030905.319f2e48.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <7vslqtf2p1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.4 (GTK+ 2.8.11; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2006 08:44:29.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A231820:01C62D55] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:47:54 -0800 Junio C Hamano wrote: > One *major* change I am thinking about doing is to change my > workflow a bit. So far, the proposed updates branch "pu" was > almost impossible to follow unless you are really a devoted git > developer, because it is always rebased to the latest master and > then topic branches are merged onto it. While that keeps the > number of unnecessary merge nodes between master and pu to the > minimum, it actively discouraged for the branch to be followed > by developers. I've always followed it okay by just using "git branch -d pu" each time before pulling from you. Your "next" branch does sound like an improvement though. Sean