On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Why not just rename master to something like stable, then rename develop > to > > master? Less confusing to people who don't know about git-flow. > > Generally when I think about an arbitrary github project I would think > that the “master” branch reflects the latest released code, and the > “develop” branch should reflect the inflight development. Assuming that the > history of the branches is properly maintained, a topic branch based in > master should be able to be worked on and then PR’d into develop (assuming > that the individual doing the work has accommodated for the merge conflicts > in migrating it to develop). > > If the project is mirrored in git, then I would argue that the semantics > of the version control system should be used as opposed to using our own > semantics because then the arbitrary developer coming from another git > project can quickly figure out how to work with the codebase. > > Well, IMO an average GutHub project usually uses a master branch as ongoing branch for development and has "release" branch or even several branches in case there are a couple of versions for release. Of course working w/ feature branch for separate tasks merging/rebasing them later into the master. But I think this is a matter of project policies and agreements, important branches usually protected from accepting direct commits into them. BR, - Artem.
