On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > In calligra, i was surprised to see people taking to branching like pigs to > muck or fish to water.
yeah, they are awesome :) > We now have 37 feature branches, of which several > have merged to master after review already. There's a simple naming > pattern that's become sort of the calligra culture already -- > subproject_topic_commit-name interesting; we're doing similar in kde-workspace: commit-name/topic; most of the time it's clear from the topic what the subproject is, so we haven't yet felt the need for subproject in there. but then again, we're only on our fourth feature branch :) what i'm finding nice with commit-name/topic is that i can track things easily by person of origin: KDE/4.6 is "official" while aseigo/activitiesrunner is something i'm working on. i can see how putting the subproject in front of that can add another nice layer of grouping as well. hm.. we might end up "borrowing" that strategy :) > -- and it all works out very well. Master is is everyone pushing their branches to the main repository, or keeping them in separate cloned repositories? for kde-workspace we're seriously considering using a shared clone (not quite a team clone, more like a communally abused personal clone ;) so that the commit hooks don't get run on feature branches until they are ready for merging (which is particularly a nuisance with commits that have BUG: in the log message) but so that we can keep our development still in one easy to find place. that would make master in the clone our integration branch, and master in kde- workspace our shipping branch. i'm still working out the amount of merge work that will end up making for us, though ... -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
