Maybe I lost sight of your problem. Can you give a specific example of where "it" does not work? > -----Original Message----- > From: git-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:git-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Josef Wolf > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:51 PM > To: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Workflow for templates? > > No suggestions on this one? > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:44:04AM +0100, Josef Wolf wrote: > > I am somewhat unsure whether it would work this way. After all, there > seems to > > be an unbreakable rule with git: never rebase published branches. > > > > Thus, once I have published my work to other people who also need to > work on > > the same localizations as I do, I have no longer the option of > rebasing to get > > rid of the localizations and put the generic template stuff for > upstream. > > > > I guess, my concern is because I have not yet fully understood the > problems of > > rebasing, and how to recover from them. > > > > Maybe I should try to explain the problem in terms of repository > > hierarchy. Let's assume, there is this hierarchy of repositories: > > > > upstream: central repository, containing the generic template > > > > foo-site: repository for site foo. Here we have localizations for a > specific > > administrative entity named foo (say, google). > > This is where clones for production are made from, and > production > > boxes pull from here to be kept up-to-date. > > > > foo-prodA: A clone of foo-site, put in production and pulling from a > specific > > branch on foo-site to receive released, blessed updates. > > foo-prodB: Similar to foo-prodA, but on another box. > > > > foo-devA: A clone of foo-site to make development, releases, and > whatever for > > foo. > > foo-devB: One more clone of foo-site, Developer B is working here. > > > > Then, we might have more administrative entities: bar-site, bar- > prodA, > > bar-prodB, bar-devA, bar-devB, for example. This might be Microsoft, > for > > example. > > > > Further, foo-devA might be the same person as bar-devA. > > > > So when foo-devA pulls from foo-devB, then foo-devB will create > problems when > > he rebases after that pull. > > > > I think I have some kind of misunderstanding here, but I just can't > figure > > what it is. > > > > > > Maybe I should try to explain the problem in yet other words: > > > > What I am trying to achieve, is to extend the workflow from > development to > > deployment across multiple administrative entities. As a picture: > > > > upstream (templates only). > > ^ > > | > > v > > development (configured, might contain experimental changes) > > ^ > > | > > v > > deployment (configured) > > > > This workflow should not stop at administrative borders. Just replace > foo by > > google and bar by Microsoft to get an idea of what I am trying to > achieve. > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>