> > I'm also glad that my only objection with the above list is > c) develop new features in branches. I don't think it's necessary > for most features, only for largish ones that are likely to take > time and break the normal bug-free level in the main dev branch. >
I understand that it sounds a bit over-the-top to create a new feature for each commit you make. However let me point you to the following observations I made: - even the simplest commits, might have follow-ups, style corrections, correction of unwanted committed files, and so forth. - it is good to have some safeguard for each commit. One might always forget some files, commit unwanted files, or make a stupid thinko. My problem is that each error in committing to svn leads to a cripple history. - even if it might be unnecessary, it is hardly any extra effort. If the commit seems to be fine, all what is needed is: * git merge feature * git branch -d feature > > One thing I would add to the list is > > j) keep development alive during alpha-beta-rc stage for new > features that are not intended for this release but the next Yes, I agree on this as well. Vincent
