"Thomas Adam" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> > One point:
> > Should we use for development branches a special nomination like
> > feature_xy, fix_abc?
> > Or only a README which describes the feature/fix?
>
> I don't think that's necessary. Typically, you have this pattern:
>
> initials/rough-branch-description
>
> Which denotes---by the initials---who's mainly working on the branch,
> so for example:
>
> ta/fix-clang-warnings
>
> Should denote that I am working on a branch which fixes warnings from
> Clang. Similarly, there's also "git branch --edit-description" which
> can further annotate a branch, usually more helpful when issuing
> pull-requests.
>
> Perhaps in a more wider-context, if a branch ends up not having a
> prefix, it might mean more than one person is working on it.
>
> But I don't think this really needs documenting.
I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
questions appears anymore ;)
I can add it to the document, no prob.
>
> > To think about this point:
> > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>
> Hmm. I have always been against this design---this is what lead to the
> whole git-flow set of tooling, which completely locks you in to one way
> of working. We really do not need anything as complicated as that.
Ok.
>
> -- Thomas Adam
>
> --
> "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am
> not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
>
>