Hello, On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 01:28:53AM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 04:27:12PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > > > I think so. However, it's probably better not to change the existing > > > master-unionmount branch, but rather drop it alltogether and create a > > > new one with a different name once you actually start adding the > > > approved patches. Otherwise, people who already checked out the original > > > branch will get in trouble... > > > > OK, I'll do that. > > Don't forget to remove the old master-unionmount branch afterwards: ``git > push savannah :master-unionmount''.
Thank you :-) I've almost forgotten about this detail. > > Frankly speaking, I'm generally inclined to doubt the usefulness of > > this prefix, too. This is quite fortunate, since I can create a new > > branch ``unionmount'', thus both achieving a better name and creating > > a new branch of approved patches only. > > Let me explain: the idea indeed was to construct a history line, but in > an easily, directly-visible way, which I explain on > <http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/rules/source_repositories.html>. Of > course you're correct that all this information is contained in the Git > repository itself, but for getting the big picture > (master-viengoos-on-bare-metal is based on master-viengoos is based on > master) I envisioned it to be helpful, especially so in repositories that > contain a number of non-history-sharing branches (like the incubator). > However, if you, the other contributors, disagree that this is useful, > then I surely won't object to dropping that scheme. Hm, I must confess I haven't read the source_repositories page sufficiently attentively to notice the description of the ``master-'' convention :-( Now that I've finally understood the meaning of this prefix, I am inclined to doubt that my previous doubting opinion was correct :-) Nevertheless, I think I can foresee antrik saying that one can easily see the relationship between branches using something like git-show-branch and that keeping bits of this information in the branch names is mere redundancy :-) Regards, scolobb
