Am Dienstag, 27. Februar 2018 21:36:11 UTC+1 schrieb Edward K. Ream: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Matt Wilkie <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Would it be easier to invert the process, and have dedicated releases >> branches and then master never needs to be frozen? >> > > Anything is possible, but I don't see how doing all the work outside of > master is any improvement. At some point we have to freeze *something*. > Furthermore, the scheme you suggests seems to make master almost > irrelevant, which does not seem reasonable. > > The usual way to do this today:
master as stable. develop as unstable. release as pre-stable. Everthing new comes from develop and goes to develop. When you prepare a new release you branch "develop" to "release", are doing your tests and patches on it. When everything is finished, you merge "release" to "master" and(!) "develop" (when you patched something in "relase"). Then optionally delete "release" to start fresh on the next release. And now you pull all your stuff for the world from "master". Nobody except the maintainer is supposed to work on "release" or "master", so nobody needs to hold back or knows what is going on in them. Everyone can be happyly hacking on "develop", and live with the stablity from "master". Some visualisation of it: https://blog.seibert-media.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Gitflow-Workflow-3.png -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
