On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -9:34 AM, Samium Gromoff wrote:
From: Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info
How are we supposed to be reasoning about the multiple git repositories out there?
I have been pulling from the master/public one and then working locally.
Fare works on his personal working copy.
When I make a patch on mine, based on public, seems like I sometimes end up with patches that Fare can't apply cleanly to his.
How are we supposed to handle this?
Well, there's no magic allowing to automatically compose changes that were concurrently made in the same area -- you have to merge them manually.
Why wouldn't you work off the top of the Fare's tree?
I dunno. I guess I could. But what's the point of having the shared repo then? Why shouldn't we just have Fare's tree with one "released" and one "devel" branch? Or why shouldn't Fare work on the shared repo directly, but on a branch? What are we gaining, besides confusion, by having two repos?
Thanks, r