>On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 17:00, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote: >> I'd suggest that we keep the master branch only to track the history of >> releases and officially released patches as Chet posts them, and then we >> can use separate branches for individual developers who want to use Git. >> What do you think of this idea? > > There should perhaps be development branches (like `pu' and `next' in > git's own development model[0]), but I don't like the idea of having > separate PUBLIC branches for individual developers; they can have > their own repositories with their own branches. > > I would also like to stress that whatever ends up in `master' should not be > a surprise (that is, the result of private work). There should be a public > progression through development branches and then ultimately a merge (or at > least a cherry-picking) into the master branch. > > [0] > http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob_plain;f=MaintNotes;hb=9f1017f6414d81e9dc561c2cc627b6fcd05d57b2
Of course, in this scenario, that public progression may include the refinement of code via email patches rather than commits on development branches, and then the actual commit (perhaps directly on `master' in the case of trivial changes) would simply be formed from the finalized patch (including any appropriate authorship information).
