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@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
