[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: dist-git proof of concept phase 1 complete
From:       Karel Zak <kzak () redhat ! com>
Date:       2009-12-15 21:05:58
Message-ID: 20091215210558.GI12786 () nb ! net ! home
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:45:54AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:33 -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> > 
> > My thinking is that we don't use origin/next or origin/maint either
> > and both are common upstream in git and the kernel.
> > 
> > While origin/master is common, 
> 
> origin/master isn't "common", it's the friggin default.  Every single
> git repo I interact with has development happening on origin/master.
> It's way more than just "common".

 +1
 
> > for our use, 'git push origin devel' (or
> > rawhide) makes more sense as it matches the use for other branches,
> > git push origin F-12.  There's nothing magical or required about using
> > master as the main branch.
> 
> If our maintainer has to type that out, i think we've failed the
> conversion.  The thought here is that you'd be doing "git push" and
> stuff will just happen right.  But /if/ you wanted to do things manually
> then it should match just about every other git repo out there, where
> the main branch is origin/master
> 
> > 
> > Whether other users will be more confused by the incongruity of master
> > versus devel or that it differs from what they think git may require,
> > I don't know. 
> 
> Yep, it's an opinion thing :/

 I did the mistake with origin/devel for util-linux-ng upstream three
 years ago. People was confused. Now we use origin/master like all
 other projects.

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@redhat.com>

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]