make dust master "track"-able (add .gitignore, put things under source control, etc.)

[jlmitch5]

I just did a sync from Norns onto a usb flash drive. I went to this repo and noticed some updates to a few of the supplied scripts, so I went to check out fetching and pulling in latest master to get those. Currently, it seems like a lot of the supplied files are not under source control, so the pull would not be clean:

My thinking is that making sure stuff that we want under source control to be tracked (and things that we don't to be ignored) would fix this. It would allow users to manually pull and stay up to date with master (as opposed to waiting for releases). I think that having a more definitive release-cycle makes a lot of since for norns' firmware (with QA, beta, etc.), but less so for the type of stuff that dust holds.

[catfact]

that output seems anomalous; most (all?) of those things are under git control.

i wonder if you cloned the repo before ownership was transferred to monome and didn't update the remotes, or something like that?

i have this:

we@norns:~/dust $ git remote -v
origin	https://github.com/catfact/dust-1.git (fetch)
origin	https://github.com/catfact/dust-1.git (push)
upstream	https://github.com/monome/dust.git (fetch)
upstream	https://github.com/monome/dust.git (push)

and git pull upstream master works fine without a fresh clone

(i had to make a fork called dust-1 instead of dust b/c i owned the original repo)

i am not sure how @tehn set up the production units. if they were just cloned from an image maybe git is messed up, and maybe they include more untracked stuff than i'm seeing. in that case i'd suggest that people just use a fresh clone, from their own fork if they want to make changes.

but i agree that there are probably more things that can be removed / ignored if they aren't going to be updated. and whatever the solution for prod units is, it should be documented in the wiki / FAQ.

[jlmitch5]

thanks @catfact. after some more investigation, the remote was correct (monome's fork was listed) and the head is at 49d3b9a

I can hard reset to the latest head. But I'm not sure if the "sync from" usb step within norns is gonna mess things up. I'm curious if norns will update based on what's in the flash drive (good) or try to duplicate things (potentially leaving things in a wonky state).

[catfact]

fair point - i think i saw some discussion of improving that behavior. but seems like an issue for the sync scripts, less than for the git repo per se

[jlmitch5]

but seems like an issue for the sync scripts, less than for the git repo per se

Ah interesting, is there some other script-syncing conversation I'm missing here or on lines? I tried searching around for that for a second before, might have missed that.

Definitely true that this doesn't necessarily need to be done through git updating with this repo.