On 2-5-2011 3:15, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 12:58:59AM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: >> [...] >> my fear is also that while the extensive branch usage is superior from >> the geeky point of view, its hindrance for people not so technically >> skilled. do we want only geeks to be around? >> [...]
I don't really get this. When used to it, I don't think it is technically a very difficult workflow. Second, does that mean that the less skilled developers are only allowed to do small things and refrain from the larger features because they don't know how to use the branches ? > > Very good point. I don't think that's wanted, and I think it would not > harm if any new workflow wouldn't deviate _needlessly_ from what seemed > to have worked reasonably well for the project in the past. So even if > there are new bells and whistles in a potential new tool there is no > need to require their use on a "but we can!" base. I don't propose this based on a "because it can" base. I saw that even a lot of small commits, were either corrected adjusted etc. several times. How are we gonna decide which feature deserves a branch and which doesn't ? I also don't see how this much deviates from the good old svn workflow. Instead of committing a commit into svn, you "commit a branch", that is, you create a branch, commit your changes, push the branch. The only difference is that this is not 1 commit but a range of commits which can be altered along the way. I'm open to other workflows of course, so if anyone has a proposal, please share. > > Andre' Vincent
