On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Andrew Dunstan > <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Ideally this would be done as part of creating the new branch. Since >> the web site doesn't have the same set of committers, a second metdata >> repo like this seems sensible. >> An alternative would be to create a special branch within the core >> repo for such data, something like this (The first two lines are the >> ones that are most important): >> >> git checkout --orphan metadata >> git rm --cached -r . >> wget https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/branches_of_interest.txt >> git add branches_of_interest.txt >> git commit -m 'initial content' branches_of_interest.txt >> git push origin HEAD >> git checkout master >> >> The new branch won't share any history or files with the existing branches. > > Seems like too much magic to me. >
This is pretty much how GitHub's gh-pages docco mechanism works. It's not particularly deep magic. But if it makes people uncomfortable, let's go for a second repo. It's not worth having a huge argument over. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
