On 6 November 2014 09:18, Owen Smith <owen.sm...@cantab.net> wrote: > 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.
As I said, only certain people have commit access to the master repo, so only they can create a branch on the master repo. What you describe is exactly how one does it, but on ones locally cloned git repo, then once it is all working git will format the patch for you that someone with commit rights can easily apply. If everyone had rights to the master, even just committing to a branch, imagine what someone with evil intent could do. They could, for example, swell the repo to massive size by committing GBs of rubbish. I suggest you read up on git and how it used with distributed projects. Colin _______________________________________________ get_iplayer mailing list get_iplayer@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
