dist-git proof of concept phase 2 ready for testing

[Seth Vidal]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Jarod Wilson wrote:

> On 12/22/09 2:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Nobody should be able to create any branches that do not start with
>>> "private-".
>>
>> I really don't see the point of this, why can't we just allow any branch
>> name that isn't a reserved name (master or F-[0-9]+)?
>>
>>> We'll make sure that the buildsystem will not allow any official
>>> (non-scratch) builds to happen from a private-* branch.
>>
>> And as I wrote before, I don't like this at all, it's a regression from our
>> current workflow
>
> Define "our". In my personal opinion, Jesse is spot-on, we should NOT
> allow official builds from a private branch. That's just insane. Scratch
> builds are fine. Official builds need to be from the main branch, or a
> common non-private branch (such as the kernel has done for maintaining
> both e.g. 2.6.29 and 2.6.30 trees simultaneously for F10). If you get
> eaten by raptors, you can't expect another maintainer to come in after
> you and have to dig around for a private branch to update a build.
>

FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main 
branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.

-sv