Hi, Perhaps it would make sense to adopt something like this? https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/#the-main-branches
In short, all development happens on 'develop' branch and only when this is stable it's merged back to 'master'. One doesn't have to follow the above model strictly, for example a merge into master doesn't need to mean "new version to be released". Another nice thing is that stuff that are work in progress and not yet stable can live in a feature branch until it's stable enough to merge into 'develop'. (For example the new symbol inheritance stuff, which currently makes the master branch a bit unusable) Maybe some of this makes sense, and some not? Just some thoughts while trying to find a point in the master branch history that doesn't crash all the time :) Cheers -- /Jonatan http://kymatica.com _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
