Chet Ramey wrote at 15:59 (EDT) on Thursday: > I think there should be a master branch, and a branch that includes > posted patches other than those that have been "officially released." > Then other branches as needed to accommodate developers.
I think that could work fine; I'm happy to do my best to maintain it, although I might lag a little some times. You'll note I already maintain "maintenance/VERSION" branches for the official patch sets. I wonder if Chet's preliminary patches should go on those branches or somewhere else entirely. Suggestions are welcome on that. Michael Witten wrote at 14:44 (EDT) on Thursday: >> 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. Sorry, I was imprecise in my wording in my email yesterday. By "use separate branches for individual developers", I meant that "branches would be created for those developers who wanted to develop publicly in a Git repository". Specifically, I presumed from earlier discussion that Chet would like to continue his development in the way he's doing it for now, but his recent emails seem to indicate that he has no objections for other developers to proceed as they wish in using a public Git repository that's shared. For the latter, I have no particular branch structure that I'm advocating. The primary job I'm volunteering for is to make sure what Chet posts/releases finds its way into a well-structured set of branches in the repository. I leave it to other developers to come to a consensus about what branch structure they want in the public repository to facilitate their development, and I'll just implement that consensus once we have it. -- -- bkuhn
