GitHub desired workflow...

[Sean Farley]

"Eric A. Borisch" <eborisch at macports.org> writes:

> Thanks for all the hard work with this transition! I'm sure once we're all
> "over the hump" we'll look back and wonder why we waited so long.
>
> Just so I'm clear on this, is the desired approach for each committer to:
>
> == setup ==
> 1) clone macports/macports-ports to the local filesystem
> == every change ==
> 2) make changes
> 3) 'add' changes
> 4) 'commit' changes
> 5) 'push' changes (to macports-ports)
>
> Oh, and and to capture upstream changes, somewhere after 1 and before 5 (4?
> 3?),
>
> a) git fetch
> b) git rebase origin/master
> It looks like git pull --rebase does both of those, so that's not too bad.

I've noticed that when I do this and I run 'port sync', macports
apparently tries to rebase? 9 times out of 10 I wind up in a detached
head state.

I'm not sure I agree with attempting to modify the git repo at all. For
example, what if I'm in the middle of bisecting and need to add/remove a
port? Why does 'port sync' call at all what the state is?