{"thread":{"id":"26031","subject":"developing a modified Linux-style workflow","startedAt":"2010-12-12T22:24:16Z","lastAt":"2010-12-13T16:15:16Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Hans-Christoph Steiner","David Aguilar","Neal Kreitzinger"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"157901","messageId":"7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at","threadId":"26031","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"developing a modified Linux-style workflow","fromName":"Hans-Christoph Steiner","fromEmail":"hans@at.or.at","sentAt":"2010-12-12T22:24:16Z","receivedAt":"2010-12-12T22:24:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"hans@at.or.at","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1c13a02a7ce0967545022bb70473b495f551da3b23ef3759111a8278b24af856?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"\nHey all,\n\n(and my second post on this list...)\n\nI've gotten pretty good at git, and its helping me already with \nmanaging the very odd workflows I have with the software I work a lot \non called Pd (http://puredata.info). My role in Pd development is \nlike a Linux lieutenant.\n\nI also the main dev for an app called Pd-extended, which is based on \nPd. Now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to use git to match my \ncurrent workflow for Pd-extended, which is a kind of long-lived \nbranch, almost like a friendly fork. So its kind of close to the \nLinux workflow with me as a lieutenant, but not quite.\n\nWhat makes it tricky is that I make releases directly from my repo \nthat are widely used. So my repo is both lieutenant and dictator at \nthe same time. So that's where I am stumped. I want to be able to \nrebase and push to a public repo, but that would be stupid. So there \nhas got to be another way.\n\n.hc\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three \nmeals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, \nand dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. - Martin \nLuther King, Jr.\n"},{"id":"157917","messageId":"F24A90CB-3B3F-4B45-B638-7E262202CDF0@at.or.at","threadId":"26031","inReplyTo":"20101213033145.GA3609@gmail.com","subject":"Re: developing a modified Linux-style workflow","fromName":"Hans-Christoph Steiner","fromEmail":"hans@at.or.at","sentAt":"2010-12-13T03:23:48Z","receivedAt":"2010-12-13T03:23:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"hans@at.or.at","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1c13a02a7ce0967545022bb70473b495f551da3b23ef3759111a8278b24af856?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"\nOn Dec 12, 2010, at 10:31 PM, David Aguilar wrote:\n\n> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner \n> wrote:\n>>\n>> Hey all,\n>>\n>> (and my second post on this list...)\n>>\n>> I've gotten pretty good at git, and its helping me already with\n>> managing the very odd workflows I have with the software I work a\n>> lot on called Pd (http://puredata.info). My role in Pd development\n>> is like a Linux lieutenant.\n>>\n>> I also the main dev for an app called Pd-extended, which is based on\n>> Pd. Now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to use git to match my\n>> current workflow for Pd-extended, which is a kind of long-lived\n>> branch, almost like a friendly fork. So its kind of close to the\n>> Linux workflow with me as a lieutenant, but not quite.\n>>\n>> What makes it tricky is that I make releases directly from my repo\n>> that are widely used. So my repo is both lieutenant and dictator at\n>> the same time. So that's where I am stumped. I want to be able to\n>> rebase and push to a public repo, but that would be stupid. So\n>> there has got to be another way.\n>\n> Have you considered periodically merging Pd into Pd-extended\n> as an alternative to rebasing? It might even be easier to\n> manage in the long-term.\n\n\nThe thing I really like about the lieutenant workflow is that I can \nkeep my patches at the top of history, and it automatically handles it \nonce my patch is handled upstream. It seems that merging Pd into Pd- \nextended would leave me with a very complicated history.\n\n.hc\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n'You people have such restrictive dress for women,’ she said, hobbling \naway in three inch heels and panty hose to finish out another pink- \ncollar temp pool day. - “Hijab Scene #2\", by Mohja Kahf\n"},{"id":"157916","messageId":"20101213033145.GA3609@gmail.com","threadId":"26031","inReplyTo":"7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at","subject":"Re: developing a modified Linux-style workflow","fromName":"David Aguilar","fromEmail":"davvid@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-12-13T03:31:47Z","receivedAt":"2010-12-13T03:31:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"davvid@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/13196?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:\n> \n> Hey all,\n> \n> (and my second post on this list...)\n> \n> I've gotten pretty good at git, and its helping me already with\n> managing the very odd workflows I have with the software I work a\n> lot on called Pd (http://puredata.info). My role in Pd development\n> is like a Linux lieutenant.\n> \n> I also the main dev for an app called Pd-extended, which is based on\n> Pd. Now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to use git to match my\n> current workflow for Pd-extended, which is a kind of long-lived\n> branch, almost like a friendly fork. So its kind of close to the\n> Linux workflow with me as a lieutenant, but not quite.\n> \n> What makes it tricky is that I make releases directly from my repo\n> that are widely used. So my repo is both lieutenant and dictator at\n> the same time. So that's where I am stumped. I want to be able to\n> rebase and push to a public repo, but that would be stupid. So\n> there has got to be another way.\n\nHave you considered periodically merging Pd into Pd-extended\nas an alternative to rebasing? It might even be easier to\nmanage in the long-term.\n-- \n\t\tDavid\n"},{"id":"157966","messageId":"ie5grt$au2$1@dough.gmane.org","threadId":"26031","inReplyTo":"7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at","subject":"Re: developing a modified Linux-style workflow","fromName":"Neal Kreitzinger","fromEmail":"neal@rsss.com","sentAt":"2010-12-13T16:15:16Z","receivedAt":"2010-12-13T16:15:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"neal@rsss.com","avatar":null},"body":"\"Hans-Christoph Steiner\" wrote in message \nnews:7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at...\n>\n> Hey all,\n>\n> (and my second post on this list...)\n>\n> I've gotten pretty good at git, and its helping me already with managing \n> the very odd workflows I have with the software I work a lot on called Pd \n> (http://puredata.info). My role in Pd development is like a Linux \n> lieutenant.\n>\n> I also the main dev for an app called Pd-extended, which is based on Pd. \n> Now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to use git to match my current \n> workflow for Pd-extended, which is a kind of long-lived branch, almost \n> like a friendly fork. So its kind of close to the Linux workflow with me \n> as a lieutenant, but not quite.\n>\n> What makes it tricky is that I make releases directly from my repo that \n> are widely used. So my repo is both lieutenant and dictator at the same \n> time. So that's where I am stumped. I want to be able to rebase and \n> push to a public repo, but that would be stupid. So there has got to be \n> another way.\n>\n> .hc\n>\nI don't think pushing to a public repo is stupid. You could create a bare \nrepo with a Pd branch and Pd-extended branch that contain the production \nversions of Pd and Pd-extended. The main reason our shop chose git is \nbecause it allows us to easily have multiple concurrent versions of \nproduction by having a branch for each of our custom versions. These \nversions eventually get merged together into a major release, but in the \nmeantime they are longlived branches representing the productional \ncustomized system for each major customer.\n\n*If* you end up merging Pd and Pd-extended at some point, then you could \nhave another branch for that, e.g. master or Pd-master or whatever. BTW, \nyou do not have to use master as the representative of your final merged \nwork so don't think that is the way you HAVE to do it. It's just the \ndefault, and a common practice for systems with a single version of \nproduction. Master can become vestigial or secondary, if you choose to \ncreate a new branch called Pd-master, etc. to represent your eventual merges \nof Pd and Pd-extended.\n\n\nv/r,\nNeal \n"}]}