that's also something we do for a few public GitHub Actions already. Having an Action to update Acti
that's also something we do for a few public GitHub Actions already. Having an Action to update Action versions 
startingpoint and I'm not sure which path is cleaner, so let's hear opinions:main branch".startingpoint repo.upstream-main and link it to upstream/main.main.upstream-main and then rebase their own main onto upstream-main to get the latest template improvements.build branch".startingpoint repo.main to upstream for easy syncing. Although they can do that effortlessly via the GitHub web UI with one click since that's doable by default.build branch and perform their own edits there.main and then rebase their own build onto main to get the latest template improvements.build idea (B) because the naming is more deliberate and clear. Syncing via web UI also becomes possible. I kinda wish startingpoint's main branch was named template instead of main.build branch makes the most sense. It also allows us to move away from main to rename the main branch to template in the future..github/ directory's workflow files. This is about making it easier to work with the ublue-os/startingpoint repo, for people who decide to clone it and make their own uBlue images. 

startingpoint PR. It improves the workflow for people who fork the repo, since it's currently hard to work with downstream forks.startingpointstartingpointstartingpointstartingpointupstream-mainupstream-mainupstream-mainupstream/mainupstreamtemplatetemplate.github/ublue-os/startingpoint