On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 01:38:38 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen
wrote:
On 16-07-2012 03:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I should note that we use this exact model for every project
we have
where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping
those five
points of tension moderated. And our users can actually get
work done
without waiting for weeks and months because thing X is just
plain
broken, which in turn makes us look good. (Improving Loyalty)
Allow me to propose something.
Right now all dmd changes get merged in the head. Suppose we
find a
volunteer in the community who is:
1. Highly motivated
2. With a good understanding of D
3. Expert with git
4. Reliable
I wonder if it's possible that that person cherry-picks
commits from
HEAD into two separate branches: bugfixes and unstable. It
should be
easy to create installers etc. for those.
If we see this works well and gathers steady interest, we can
improve it
and make it the practice of the entire team.
Would this be possible?
Andrei
I propose a slight variation:
* master: This is the 'incoming' branch. Unstable, in-dev, etc.
It's easier this way since pull requests will usually target
this branch and build bots will test this.
* stable: This branch contains only bug fixes to existing
language features, and enhancements that do not in any way
impact existing features (or break code). Should be manually
maintained based on master.
That's it. I don't see a need for any added complexity to this
simple model. Feel free to destroy as you see fit, though!
git-flow is the other candidate.
https://github.com/nvie/gitflow/
See more detail:
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
