"Thomas Adam" <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote:
> 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.

I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no
questions appears anymore ;)

I can add it to the document, no prob.

> > 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.)

Reply via email to