Lets say you have a system where you have an unmodified upstream source, and a set of patches to get that upstream source to run on your system.
As I understand it, there are two ways to deal with this in Git: 1. One branch is the upstream's release. This may be a full clone of the upstream git repository. A second branch is the local port. In this model, after updating the upstream, you then checkout local, and merge upstream into it. Resolve conflicts from changes in the upstream, test the result, commit new patches to local, and then have a "working" system. Your "changeset" is the difference from the upstream to the latest in local. You have a full history of everything your changeset has ever done, but your total history is a bit messy. 2. You have a continually rebased set of patches. At any time, there is a straight line of changes from the last upstream release to the current local port. In this model, there is no historical record/changeset to your changeset; each release of your local port changes winds up looking independent of all prior changes. However, your histories for each version's localization is easy to read. Am I understanding these tradeoffs correctly? Is there a better way to keep track of how your changes for porting a program to a new system have changed over time? --- Entertaining minecraft videos http://YouTube.com/keybounce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
