Re: Repositories

[Markus Hitter]

Am 20.12.2013 17:27, schrieb Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller:
> There would be the Linux way of handling patches.
> 
> 1. people clone the central repository (and pull from time to time)
> 2. they develop patches in whatever (local) branches they like to
> 3. if a patch is working for them, they git-format-patch and post it to
> the mailing list
> 4. the (a) maintainer picks up the patch and tries to apply with
> git am file.patch to a local branch
> 5. if ok, the maintainer makes a push to github and it is "accepted"

Yes, this should work. Git is tailored for this approach, after all.

What I currently experiment with is to hand out write access very
liberately, asking people to commit to their own branch(es), only. Works
well, the number of branches isn't limited, after all. The not so good
thing here is, people aren't used to it. The good things are,
contributions are very visible, people have to just git-push to make
their work an acutal contribution, it's easy to apply contributions
partially, to review them and to keep them from bitrotting by rebasing.

Merges no longer happen, instead these branches are rebased towards the
current top of the development/experimental branch, then cherry-picked.
When things look good, chunks from experimental are picked over to
master, too. You get a very tree-like appearance of the whole repo with
all the branches moving skywards together, keeping history on the
single-string master branch. This makes bisecting very simple.


Markus

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.reprap-diy.com/
http://www.jump-ing.de/