{"thread":{"id":"1366","subject":"Status of git.git repository","startedAt":"2005-07-30T02:11:48Z","lastAt":"2005-08-04T22:26:11Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Junio C Hamano","Petr Baudis"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"6615","messageId":"7vhded6o0r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"1366","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Status of git.git repository","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2005-07-30T02:11:48Z","receivedAt":"2005-07-30T02:11:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"I've been trying to streamline my workflow since I took it over\nfrom Linus, and I think I am getting used to it.  So here is a\nshort summary of what I am doing in the git.git repository.\n\nRight now, there are two branches on kernel.org git.git\nrepository.  I would not rewind \"master\" so if I find out any\nscrewups and need to do an emergency fix, that fix would go on\ntop of the tip of \"master\" (I just did one today X-< due to lack\nof testing).\n\nOn the other hand, \"pu\" is rebased every time \"master\" advances.\nThey are queued patches I receive in e-mails, and they hopefully\nwill graduate to be part of \"master\" when I feel they look OK,\nand I feel that objections from the list were non-issues.  Of\ncourse some may drop out without graduating.  Please consider\nseeing your patch in \"pu\" branch an ACK from me, but seeing it\nsitting in \"pu\" for a long time is a sign of trouble.\n\nBy the way, do people mind my posting my own patches to the\nlist?  I keep the same in the \"pu\" (proposed updates) branch, so\nif the list readers think I am just adding noise to the list\ntraffic, I would stop doing so, and instead just invite\ninterested people to browse the \"pu\" branch.\n"},{"id":"6815","messageId":"20050804222611.GE24479@pasky.ji.cz","threadId":"1366","inReplyTo":"7vhded6o0r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: Status of git.git repository","fromName":"Petr Baudis","fromEmail":"pasky@suse.cz","sentAt":"2005-08-04T22:26:11Z","receivedAt":"2005-08-04T22:26:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"pasky@ucw.cz","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/18439?v=4"},"body":"Dear diary, on Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 04:11:48AM CEST, I got a letter\nwhere Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...\n> By the way, do people mind my posting my own patches to the\n> list?  I keep the same in the \"pu\" (proposed updates) branch, so\n> if the list readers think I am just adding noise to the list\n> traffic, I would stop doing so, and instead just invite\n> interested people to browse the \"pu\" branch.\n\nBrowsing the \"pu\" branch may be bothersome and you won't ensure that the\nrelated discussion stays in a single thread, and posting the patches\nhere makes them generally more visible, so I think it's a good idea to\nkeep doing so.\n\nCogito (and Git itself as well, I guess) does not handle those\n\"volatile\" branches well at all - following them is difficult since\nCogito will think that you did some local commits and want to do a tree\nmerge. Would anyone consider doing\n\n\tif ref(updatebranch) == ref(master) then\n\t\tmerge: always_fastforward\n\telse\n\t\tmerge: perhaps_treemerge\n\na Bad Thing (tm)? It seems to me that it should do the right thing and\nnever get it wrong.\n\n-- \n\t\t\t\tPetr \"Pasky\" Baudis\nStuff: http://pasky.or.cz/\nIf you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching\nsomeone.  -- Alan Cox\n"}]}