On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 04:05:45AM +0000, Carl Sorensen wrote: > On 12/2/11 9:01 PM, "gra...@percival-music.ca" <gra...@percival-music.ca> > wrote: > >However, perhaps we need to explain this (and modify lily-git.tcl). > >I'll take a look at lily-git.tcl and see how hard it would be to modify > >it. > > We can make lily-git.tcl aware of master and staging. We could even add a > separate branch on which the patches would be worked. > > I'll see if I can work something up.
Thanks, that would be great. I wonder if we can/should assume that no developer (i.e. person with push ability) is using lily-git.tcl. If we make that assumption, then lily-git.tcl would only need to track master (to keep the source up-to-date) and "working" (the branch that all that contributor's work is done on -- maybe even call it dev/USERNAME ?). I'd like to have contributor's work being done on a separate branch, even though it'll be strictly local, just to get them used to the idea of branches. If "master" is always seen as a mirror of origin/master, that removes one layer of possible confusion. I can then use the idea of a "working" branch in the developer-oriented git docs; making the assumption that people do their work in "working" (or any other branchname), reserving "master" and "staging" for special cases. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
