[U-Boot-Users] Added a custodian status page to denx.de/UBoot

Haavard Skinnemoen hskinnemoen at gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 21:20:46 CEST 2007

On 4/6/07, Aubrey Li <aubrey.adi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> > In message <27d85ee10704050821j19a6bbd8j19e820b8ee47727d at mail.gmail.com> you wrote
> > > So, I'm thinking, keep two branches in the git repository,
> > > one is for upstream, I put everything needed to this branch request
> > > Wolfgang to review and merge;
> > > the other is master, I apply all unacceptable patches on this branch,
> > > so that user can clone it and simply build to get a more feature
> > > u-boot.
> >
> > OK, just do it exactly the other way round: master is  for  upstream,
> > and  you can have a "testing" or "cutsom" or whatever branch for your
> > local stuff.
> That means users have to learn more than one git command.
> if master for the users, they just have to git-clone and build;
> if another branch for the users, they have to clone and create branch.
> But yes, it's not a big deal, just my thoughts.

I agree with Aubrey. Wolfgang, I imagine you know a lot better how
branches work than most users, so I think it makes most sense to keep
"needs more testing" stuff in the master branch to maximize the amount
of testing. If pull requests are on the form

git://repository/... for-wolfgang

i.e. the repository URI and the branch name all on a single line, all
you have to do is triple-click it and paste it into the terminal after
"git pull".

Besides, this allows the custodians to reorder and combine patches to
keep the revision history clean, and rebase it against the latest
upstream head before sending a pull request. Doing such things on the
master branch will confuse the hell out of many users pulling from it.


More information about the U-Boot mailing list