Re: developing a modified Linux-style workflow

From: Neal Kreitzinger <neal@rsss.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2010, 16:15 UTC
Message-ID: <ie5grt$au2$1@dough.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at>

"Hans-Christoph Steiner" <hans@at.or.at> wrote in message news:7EAE16CF-A9A8-47A6-9294-3646CCDB0E9C@at.or.at...

Show 24 quoted lines

>
> 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