David asked: > > 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?
The way I understood it, we wanted our copies of the upstream branches to keep their own upstream names verbatim but with an "upstream-" prefixed to avert name clashes. Otherwise it would get really confusing figuring out which of our "upstream-" branches corresponds to which actual branch upstream. On a different note, if we're forgoing a "master" branch in favour of debian-unstable, then when I run git clone, which branch will present by default, will it be debian-unstable? Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
