> > This in fact means: >>> >>> create a master branch which is stable. >>> create a develop branch which is not so stable. >>> create feature branches from develop where you work out your changes. >>> >> >> We are just swapping the branch names here, in the end your model isn't >> very different from mine. Let's say the develop branch is named >> 'master', the stable branch is named '1.x' or 'stable' and we are >> basically dealing with the same workflow. >> > > It's not my model, its the model described here: > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > This is a model many people follow. Having a development branch which is > called master > will confuse a lot of people.
I highly doubt that. In fact master being unstable is kind of the default if you look around on github. > We should respect the naming conventions of git as good as possible. > There are *many* project that use git that have the master being unstable. Rails is just one example. Please lets not mix one bike shedding topic with the other - that's madness ;) cheers, Torsten
