>Interesting read. Are you also pushing to make Git the default SCM? > >I'm not sure how far away we are from this model in some respects. We have >whiteboards which sort of decentralize new development, and I am proposing an >"unstable" branch that maps to the "develop" >branch in the article (and >"master" is "trunk"). > >I don't know that I'd go with release branches if we can get enough folks to >pound on the promotions from unstable to trunk when they go in. > >And to answer Justin's question, merging by revision number worked pretty well >for us. But yes, every once in a while you will hit merge-hell. I'm just >saying it is worth it in order to protect the integrity of trunk.
If it's possible, yes, I really do think Git would help. The reason is that dealing with merge issues in Git are infinitely easier and, at least 95% of the time, keeps us out of the merge-hell that I think Justin legitimately fears. The one nice thing about the release and feature branches is that it allows people to start working toward future releases and grand visions while a current release is being stabilized. For example the code many had in whiteboards that was destined for future releases. Mike
