[***SPAM***] [Nix-dev] Re: new possible movement to git (?)

[Michael Raskin]

<1e1d23499a69570914f03bc0a196953a.squirrel at webmail.shealevy.com>
<87ei034yse.fsf at write-only.cryp.to>)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>> The whole notion of having a "stdenv-updates" branch in the first place
>> is obsolete in Git. Instead, we would have many small topic branches for
>> specific features.
>if you want branch to show in history you would have to push that branch
>ti remote repo as well (using --no-ff option).
>
>but as Peter pointed, branches in git are matter of "local higene". You
>name it however you want and make sure you merge them to remote branch.
>Git doesn't force to you specific branching policy localy while still
>playing nice with policy used on remote branch.

Well, remote branches are just local branches for the remote repository.

So the naming questions apply to them.