* I think we as a community need to figure out how to work together in > a more centralized environment before we get too decentralized. I > worry that the desire to move to git is in many ways a desire to "get > around" the problem of not being able to define a branching strategy > by adopting one in which each developer can have his or her own > branching strategy. My concern is that this will lead to us not really > working together much.
That couldn't be further from what is being proposed by using the Git Branching model. I don't see how desiring to move to Git plus the most well defined branching model that has been proposed is promoting to work with "his or her own branching strategy". No one has ever proposed that we should move to Git and work however each developer wants, quite the contrary, we have proposed to work using a VERY detailed workflow of Git branching. *In contrast, the other strategies are described in ways like: * *"In this model, there is a "trunk" branch that is almost always* *production-ready, a "develop" branch, and various other branches on whiteboards and elsewhere on an as-needed basis."* Could this be any less specific? How is this promoting to work together when things need to be "almost always production ready" and "on an as-needed basis", what are the criterion for these decisions? If you actually read http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/you would see that the uses and purpose of each of the branches are VERY detailed with diagrams and detailed workflows. How is this promoting "his or her own branching strategy"? On the contrary, its the only model that has been proposed with any kind of ACTUAL detail beyond just saying "on an as-needed basis". Anyhow, I think this is my last post on the subject, as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink it... or also this horse is dead and beat to death or something like that... -omar
