To give more detail, I meant create a branch, check the file out, test your change, check change in to your own branch, then send details of the branch to the master maintainers to see if they want to accept the change (which seems to be a git pull request or similar), and if they do they merge that branch back in. I wouldn't expect anyone, even dinkypumpkin, to do day to day work on the top level master codestream.
But patches seem so backwards. Source control systems do the job so much better. -- Owen Smith <owen.sm...@cantab.net> Cambridge, UK On 6 Nov 2014, at 09:03, Colin Law <clan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 November 2014 01:07, Owen Smith <owen.sm...@cantab.net> wrote: >> Why bother with patches? Why not just check the source file out, change it, >> and check it back in again with the change in? Or does git not work like >> conventional source control systems? > > Only a limited number of people have commit rights to the master > repository, so they must send a patch to someone who does. > > Colin _______________________________________________ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
