On 29 Nov 2013, at 14:39, Torsten Curdt wrote:
This in fact means:
create a master branch which is stable.
create a develop branch which is not so stable.
create feature branches from develop where you work out your
changes.
We are just swapping the branch names here, in the end your model
isn't
very different from mine. Let's say the develop branch is named
'master', the stable branch is named '1.x' or 'stable' and we are
basically dealing with the same workflow.
It's not my model, its the model described here:
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
This is a model many people follow. Having a development branch which
is
called master
will confuse a lot of people.
I highly doubt that. In fact master being unstable is kind of the
default
if you look around on github.
We should respect the naming conventions of git as good as possible.
There are *many* project that use git that have the master being
unstable.
Rails is just one example.
Aha ok, good to know. Well you are more into that. I have learned it a
different
way but well, I stand corrected.
Please lets not mix one bike shedding topic with the other - that's
madness
;)
"I am not mad!"
- Nyarlathotep, the mad faceless god from Lovecrafts Cthulhu mythos
;-)
Cheers
Christian
cheers,
Torsten
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
