"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. Ok. > > -- 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.) > >