On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote:
> One point:
> Should we use for development branches a special nomination like feature_xy,
> fix_abc?
> Or only a README which describes the feature/fix?
I don't think that's necessary. Typically, you have this pattern:
initials/rough-branch-description
Which denotes---by the initials---who's mainly working on the branch,
so for example:
ta/fix-clang-warnings
Should denote that I am working on a branch which fixes warnings from
Clang. Similarly, there's also "git branch --edit-description" which
can further annotate a branch, usually more helpful when issuing
pull-requests.
Perhaps in a more wider-context, if a branch ends up not having a
prefix, it might mean more than one person is working on it.
But I don't think this really needs documenting.
> To think about this point:
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
Hmm. I have always been against this design---this is what lead to the
whole git-flow set of tooling, which completely locks you in to one way
of working. We really do not need anything as complicated as that.
-- Thomas Adam
--
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
