From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Holger Hellmuth Subject: Re: Big Mess--How to use Git to resolve Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:04:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4EEF6E98.7080000@ira.uka.de> References: <1324125130643-7103964.post@n2.nabble.com> <86iplf2oy5.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <1324147247781-7104493.post@n2.nabble.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: hs_glw X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 19 18:03:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcgcw-0004RS-UI for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:03:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752171Ab1LSRDr (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:03:47 -0500 Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.81]:47979 "EHLO iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752129Ab1LSRDq (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:03:46 -0500 Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps port 25 id 1Rcgci-0000VJ-0P; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:03:44 +0100 Received: from i20s141.iaks.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.32.141] helo=[172.16.22.120]) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtpsa port 25 id 1Rcgch-0001W6-PA; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:03:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111101 SUSE/3.1.16 Thunderbird/3.1.16 In-Reply-To: <1324147247781-7104493.post@n2.nabble.com> X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1324314225.027637000 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 17.12.2011 19:40, hs_glw wrote: > Randal, thank you for the comprehensive answer. I have one follow-up: we > have the working files, then in our installation files we have .PL files > that are worked on by some iteration of "make" to insert paths both into > .cgi files and config files, should these installation files be setup as a > branch? or is there a more correct way of implementing this? If I understand you correctly the working aka source files are patched in place to adapt to a customer. I would suggest changing that a bit so that the source filename is different from the installation filename. Add the source file into the repo and add the installation filenames into .gitignore That way you don't have generated files in the repository. Which is usually avoided because they easily get out of sync with their source. The renaming should be done so you never erraneously add installation files into the repository in place of the source files