Heh, if I felt I could conclude that thread I would have done so already. We had a reasonably well described approach at one point and coherency was destroyed by a late appearance of the git-flow alternative.
B. On 4 June 2013 18:43, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > This thread is concluded. :) I meant the "[DISCUSS] Git workflow" thread. > > > On 4 June 2013 18:41, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What's not concluded in this thread? >> >> B. >> >> >> On 4 June 2013 18:04, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Bob, are you able to help drive the Git thread to conclusion? We need to >> > clarify this and document it. Think a lot people are confused right now >> > since it seems everything is in the air. >> > >> > >> > On 31 May 2013 16:51, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> master, as usual, and the x.y.z branches (for backports). All other >> >> branches should be feature or fix branches we've not deleted. >> >> >> >> B. >> >> >> >> On 31 May 2013 16:47, Wendall Cada <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I'm fairly well versed in using git and different workflows, rebase, >> etc. >> >> > However, I'm utterly confused as to how I might contribute changes to >> >> > couchdb, what branches are relevant, etc. Is there documentation for >> >> this, >> >> > or a clear summary of decisions made? >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > >> >> > Wendall >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > NS >> > > > > -- > NS
