On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David ?Bombe? Roden < bombe at pterodactylus.net> wrote:
> I have recently started using the branching model suggested by Vincent > Driessen in http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/. At > first > the amount of branches that are created seem overwhelming but after a short > time the benefits of having features cleanly separated before merging them > outweigh the added complexity of the graph in gitk by far. I'm all for doing things in ways that have been proven successful by others. The current approach which involves a variety of independent repositories does seem fairly peculiar. I'm also thinking we may want to draw a distinction between commits which can be mostly tested on local nodes only, I would consider Freetalk an example of this, and commits where we can only be sure of their impact once widely deployed on the network. An example of the latter would be changes to load balancing. The latter variety of commit should obviously be treated much more conservatively than something which can be tested on a relatively small number of nodes and are unlikely to have any "emergent" effects. Ian. -- Ian Clarke Personal blog: http://blog.locut.us/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110124/4b560cda/attachment.html>
