On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:53:29PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > clone | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > New commits: > commit 0726222645eb8e6e4f25056e8f7244b4566825e3 > Author: Thierry Reding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed Jan 3 17:50:06 2007 +0100 > > Implement the proposed XSF git archive policy. > > diff --git a/clone b/clone > index 5df6b30..da15d46 100755 > --- a/clone > +++ b/clone > @@ -13,17 +13,35 @@ ( > debian=$(echo $line | cut -d' ' -f1) > upstream=$(echo $line | cut -d' ' -f2) > > + echo "Setting up $debian for cloning..." > if [ -d "$debian.git/.git/remotes" ]; then > # create remote `origin' branch for the alioth > repositories > cat > "$debian.git/.git/remotes/origin" << EOF > URL: ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-xorg/$debian.git > -Pull: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master-origin > +Push: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/debian-unstable > +Push: refs/heads/upstream-master:refs/heads/upstream-master
Why did you use 'upstream-master'? I probably was unclear in what I wrote down, looking back on the draft. What I had in mind was 'upstream-unstable', 'upstream-experimental', etc. I'm not certain that this is the best way to divide up the branches though. Do you think having 'upstream-master' is a better way of handling things? - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
