On 02/28/2013 09:12 AM, Miles Bader wrote: > Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> writes: >> So we should maybe go (after the next major release) with this naming >> scheme for the branches? >> >> * maint -> for next micro version >> * stable -> for next minor version >> * master -> for next major version > > That seems to match common practice, insofar as I understand it... > OK, I don't dislike this naming scheme, so I will implement it once 1.14 has been released (at that point, we'll be able to do so without having to resort to non-fast-forward pushes). That might take an undetermined time between a couple of months and forever.
I have no intention of discussing further the bike-shedding of branch naming, so this naming scheme will be the one we'll use, period. > [Another consideration is whether you have a single named branch for > maintenance (e.g. "maint", and "stable"), or just use version-named > branches (and thus can maintain multiple versions simultaneously).] > The former, I only want to have one maintenance branch. Having several for older versions is just too work for no real gain (and if a security fix is needed, bug-fixing branches for several old releases can just be created on demand without anu fuss). Thanks for the feedback, and best regards, Stefano
