Federico Mena Quintero <federico@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 12:44 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> I am not so sure it "tracking" should be considered the norm.
> ...
>
> Hmmm, I guess it depends on people's particular workflows, but I do
> believe auto-tracking should be the default for remote branches.
>
> Here's my scenario:
You do not have to explain that to me; I know some people find
tracking useful. I would not have accepted the patch to add
tracking otherwise.
> What's an effective use of "git pull <url>", say, with different URLs
> every time? If you were a maintainer getting changes from various
> contributors, I guess you'd create branches for each one,...
Typically, you get a pull-request email message that says:
Please pull from:
git://my.box.xz/my/project.git/ master
to get the following changes...
You cut & paste that to "git pull" command line.
> Actually, what's the preferred way to generate a patch for submission
> once you've been working on something (making mistakes, committing over
> them, etc.)?
You first clean up your history to pretend you did not make such
mistakes, and then format-patch the resulting history and send
that out.
-
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
