HI, > So, while the poll is leaning towards an unstable branch, there seems to be > a lot of interest in the Git Branching Model described here [1]. And there's also more interest in multiple branches than a having a single unstable branch and also using trunk as the main working area and having a branch for each release.
Before we decide on using a single unstable branch I would like someone to confirm the exact sequence of SVN commands needed to work with SVN like this. In particular I think these questions need to be answered: 1. How do we preserve history of changes (and check in comments) in the unstable branch when merging with trunk. I'm not 100% if this is an issue or not. 2. How do we deal with conflicts in trunk when merging changesets from the unstable branch. 3. How do we keep the unstable branch in sync with the trunk (esp when changes need to be made in trunk due to conflicts). I did a rough outline of steps here: http://markmail.org/message/o4unlhvlfqjprhj7 > I am thinking of running a new poll that includes this model, but I want to > make sure that there isn't going to be an obvious show-stopper with SVN if > it wins. Git is much better at handling branches so I would expect there to be some issues but IMO there would be less issues than if we used a single unstable branch. > I also pondered the notion of a variant where SVN trunk is the "master" and > we use a Git branch as the "develop" branch. You can do this via git-svn (http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-svn.html) but that adds further complications. As git is decentralised (ie you work in local copy and there is no master) how do you expect the develop branch to be shared? hosted on github perhaps? Thanks, Justin
