I'm still slow at git and fumbling around, but have you pushed your readytopull to your public repo? If I clone you, I don't see it:
it should be there now paul. I had some goofery that I just nuked locally. In that cloned repo, try a `git fetch -f origin`. That should pull in my changes, and force updates.
I don't know how this thing typically works.. do people usually have a branch that is ready to pull?
Generally, yes. That way people know which branch to pull things from.. not a 'messy test branch'. It is usually the person's responsability to ensure that their readytopull branch is fairly usable for people pulling from upstream.
I was originally thinking people would merge stuff into their master when it was ready, and work in branches until then, but I also see how having a special separate readytopull could be handy.
In any case, should we adopt a convention to eliminate confusion?
It wouldn't hurt.
... you mentioned cloning... The following is FYI, if you don't already know it.
###### You can track other people's repos internally, whithout having to have separate repo dirs..
Lets say I clone your repo.
git clone git://git.mattal.com/aur.git aur > lots out output cd aur git branch -a > * master > origin/HEAD > origin/aur2 > origin/master > origin/origin > origin/testing
Ok. Now I think...loui is doing some neat stuff...I want to check it out. I don't have to clone 'rawly'. I can add a new remote repo to track.
git remote add -f loui http://louipc.dontexist.org/aur/.git git branch -a > * master > loui/experimental > loui/master > origin/HEAD > origin/aur2 > origin/master > origin/origin > origin/testing
Then I checkout a branch to work in.
git checkout -b local-loui loui/experimental
This is nice because you can `git diff`, and `git cherry-pick` from one named repo to another, rebase, and do all kinds of other tom-foolery. ######