On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 19:36 +0000, David Nusinow wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:40 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > > > If the eventual goal is to get all the patches merged upstream -- and I > > > really hope it is -- then tracking git makes this infinitely easier, and > > > infinitely more appealing from both sides to do so. > > > > +1 > > > > It should simplify maintenance in general, e.g. we could just have > > copies of the upstream repos with branches for the Debian packaging. > > If I understand correctly, we'd initially clone the upstream repo and keep > pulling that repo. Then we have separate debian (maybe deb_unstable, > deb_experimental, etc) branches for our own work. To update to a new > version from those branches, we update our cloned master branch, checkout > the debian branch of interest, and pull the changes and we magically have > the new upstream version. Is this correct?
Basically, yes. :) BTW, I'm afraid calling me a git 'guru' is giving me way too much credit though. I think I'm becoming a relatively experienced git user, but I have very little experience with administration of a shared repository. We'd probably need an actual guru like Keith Packard for that, at least initially until we've accumulated the necessary know how. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://tungstengraphics.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
