From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Neal Kreitzinger" Subject: Re: developing a modified Linux-style workflow Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:15:16 -0600 Message-ID: References: <7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at> To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 13 17:16:17 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 1PSB4T-0002WE-7d for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:16:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757835Ab0LMQQM (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:16:12 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:56566 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757576Ab0LMQQL (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:16:11 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PSB4K-0002Sy-T9 for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:16:08 +0100 Received: from 67.63.162.200 ([67.63.162.200]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:16:08 +0100 Received: from neal by 67.63.162.200 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:16:08 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.63.162.200 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Hans-Christoph Steiner" wrote in message news:7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at... > > Hey all, > > (and my second post on this list...) > > I've gotten pretty good at git, and its helping me already with managing > the very odd workflows I have with the software I work a lot on called Pd > (http://puredata.info). My role in Pd development is like a Linux > lieutenant. > > I also the main dev for an app called Pd-extended, which is based on Pd. > Now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to use git to match my current > workflow for Pd-extended, which is a kind of long-lived branch, almost > like a friendly fork. So its kind of close to the Linux workflow with me > as a lieutenant, but not quite. > > What makes it tricky is that I make releases directly from my repo that > are widely used. So my repo is both lieutenant and dictator at the same > time. So that's where I am stumped. I want to be able to rebase and > push to a public repo, but that would be stupid. So there has got to be > another way. > > .hc > I don't think pushing to a public repo is stupid. You could create a bare repo with a Pd branch and Pd-extended branch that contain the production versions of Pd and Pd-extended. The main reason our shop chose git is because it allows us to easily have multiple concurrent versions of production by having a branch for each of our custom versions. These versions eventually get merged together into a major release, but in the meantime they are longlived branches representing the productional customized system for each major customer. *If* you end up merging Pd and Pd-extended at some point, then you could have another branch for that, e.g. master or Pd-master or whatever. BTW, you do not have to use master as the representative of your final merged work so don't think that is the way you HAVE to do it. It's just the default, and a common practice for systems with a single version of production. Master can become vestigial or secondary, if you choose to create a new branch called Pd-master, etc. to represent your eventual merges of Pd and Pd-extended. v/r, Neal