UB

Universal Blue•3y ago

Arcitec

Yep! 🙂 While we wait... I am working on improving the way people fork `startingpoint` and I'm not s

Yep! While we wait... I am working on improving the way people fork startingpointstartingpoint and I'm not sure which path is cleaner, so let's hear opinions:

A:

• Mark the GitHub workflow as "only build the mainmain branch".
• Users fork the startingpointstartingpoint repo.
• They turn it away from "template" mode into regular repo mode.
• They create a branch called upstream-mainupstream-main and link it to upstream/mainupstream/main.
• They perform their own edits in mainmain.
• They periodically sync upstream-mainupstream-main and then rebase their own mainmain onto upstream-mainupstream-main to get the latest template improvements.

B:

• Mark the GitHub workflow as "only build the buildbuild branch".
• Users fork the startingpointstartingpoint repo.
• They turn it away from "template" mode into regular repo mode.
• They link mainmain to upstreamupstream for easy syncing. Although they can do that effortlessly via the GitHub web UI with one click since that's doable by default.
• They create a buildbuild branch and perform their own edits there.
• They periodically sync mainmain and then rebase their own buildbuild onto mainmain to get the latest template improvements.

I think I like the buildbuild 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 templatetemplate instead of mainmain.