+1 moving to “trunk” or “master”. Regarding the name. These days more projects use the name “master” rather than “trunk”. (At least, that’s my impression. Hive, for instance, used “trunk” when it was primarily svn, and switched to “master” now it’s based on git.) But frankly either would be fine.
Julian > On Aug 7, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Don Bosco Durai <[email protected]> wrote: > > I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good thing. Right > now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk” seems to be a > redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the users to use > the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they would be off > the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally. > > Bosco > > > > On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project. > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull request from >> contributors automatically. >> >> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not close the >> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to close >> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask the >> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be lots of >> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged. >> >> Learning from github service: >> >> " >> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk *branch >> with (at least) the following in the commit message: >> >> This closes #305 >> " >> >> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on master/trunk, in >> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be better >> for management. >> >> Any comments are appreciated. >> >> - Hao >> > > >
