On 1/10/13 5:07 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: >Thank you. I lean to agreement w/ Andrew that more meaningful pull >reqs are better and having named branches for what they do makes >sense. Also agree that tags are for points in time---but I take no >exception to a branch for those as well for dev purposes. > >Let me try to capture the conversation to this point: > >Branches: >- Master gets deleted. We want meaningful pull requests and this will >force folks to pick a branch to dev against. >- Stable: This is stable and frozen on the last tagged release. >- Dev: The next release to be tagged. Feature branches merged from >master when confident. This should build cleanly.
^^ merged from master? >- Unstable: the current working branch. Feature branches merged as >needed for collaboration. No guarantee it builds. > >Tags: >- Happen on the Stable branch. > >Workflow >- Everyone works from local feature branch rebasing and committing to >Unstable as neccessary. >- When that feature branch is considered good enough, it is merged into >Dev. >- On release date whatever is Dev is rebased to Stable. Tagged. Released. > >Thoughts?
