Thanks Pifta for starting the discussion. I think we can sum up your comparison of feature branch vs. master development as: the problems we usually have to solve with feature branches are procedural (busywork), while solutions required for a comparable master-based model improve the product itself for end-users as well.
In addition to the problems you mentioned, I also feel that development on a feature branch might not get the same level of attention as the master branch. Fewer people are active on each feature branch, and we are more likely to take shortcuts since "it's only a feature branch". Merge vote then places a burden on the rest of the community, too, if they are to diligently review the changes introduced over an extended time period in a batch of commits. Also, the more feature branches we have in parallel, the more severe their problems become. I strongly favor development on the master branch instead of feature branches. -Attila --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org
