Re: developing a modified Linux-style workflow
- From
Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at>
- Date
- Dec 13, 2010, 03:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <F24A90CB-3B3F-4B45-B638-7E262202CDF0@at.or.at>
- In-Reply-To
- <20101213033145.GA3609@gmail.com>
On Dec 12, 2010, at 10:31 PM, David Aguilar wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:24:16PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner > wrote: >> >> 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. > > Have you considered periodically merging Pd into Pd-extended > as an alternative to rebasing? It might even be easier to > manage in the long-term.
The thing I really like about the lieutenant workflow is that I can keep my patches at the top of history, and it automatically handles it once my patch is handled upstream. It seems that merging Pd into Pd- extended would leave me with a very complicated history.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
'You people have such restrictive dress for women,’ she said, hobbling away in three inch heels and panty hose to finish out another pink- collar temp pool day. - “Hijab Scene #2", by Mohja Kahf