On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:50:05 +0100, "Peter C.J. Clifton" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-08-30 19:10, Peter TB Brett wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:57:58 -0400, DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote: >>> So let's figure out what *our* workflows require, and write up the >>> best way to do those workflows. I'm certainly not the one to train >>> new developers on how to use git ;-) >> >> The geda-gaf official git repository's workflow is: >> >> 1) Check 'make distcheck' succeeds *before* pushing to the repository. >> 2) Commit messages describe "why"; "what" is covered by the commitdiff. >> 3) 'git push --force' is an admission that you totally screwed up. >> >> Within those guidelines, anything goes really. > > > I concur... I don't want to see --force used on PCB's repository either. > > We might consider allowing a naming convention for more transient, or > prone-to-rewriting branches, but I'd probably prefer those to be private > branches.
You could call them "wip-<name>", for example. > freedesktop.org (which hosts a lot of open source repositories) actally > host separate git repositories for individual users of the form > ~username/repo_name, e.g.: > > OFFICIAL: xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel > Chris Wilson: ~ickle/xf86-video-intel > Keith Packard: ~keithp/xf86-video-intel > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/ is another similar example. Lots of copies of the Linux repo all over the place, named "kernel/git/<name>/<foo>.git" Peter -- Dr Peter Brett http://peter-b.co.uk/ -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~geda-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
