On 11 January 2013 23:26, Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernan...@salzburgresearch.at> wrote: > Ok, taking into account all comment, I'd update my proposal regarding > repository structure would look like: > > . > |-- pom.xml > |-- COPYING.txt > |-- DISCLAIMER.txt > |-- LICENSE.txt > |-- NOTICE.txt > |-- README.txt > |-- ... > `-- platform > `-- clients > `-- libs > `-- tools > `-- extras > `-- import > > Where 'import' could be remove whenever importation process would be finish. > > Regarding the issue with SKOSjs, I don't have a clear opinion. But we should > take into account that, if we leave it out at its independent repository, > the artifact should be available via Maven central before the first Marmotta > release. > > BTW, as we already discussed internally, I'd suggest to use a branching > workflow where we have a stable "master" branch and a unstable "develop" > branch. Besides, optionally "topic" branches for each topic/issue, which > don't need to be pushed to the public repository. Further details about this > workflow at the Pro Git book:
Recently I have started using either just a Jira issue identifier for topic branch names, or including the issue identifier with something else if there are multiple topic branches for an issue. Ie, MARMOTTA-1 could be a branch in git for that issue (hypothetically) or MARMOTTA-1-some-subtask if there was more than one branch needed for the issue. I have also used the git-flow methodology (master/develop) successfully on a few projects. > http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Branching-Branching-Workflows Peter
