----- Original Message ----- > > > > 1. Branch "master" remains the main development tree. > > 2. Name-space maintenance branches with prefix "released/" > > 3. Name-space shared feature branches with prefix "features/" > > > The benefits of this would be to encourage collaboration on > > experimental > > features and make their development more visible to the public. > > What do you think? > > I like the idea in terms of clearly defining what are experimental > features. It might also encourage more usage of branches as opposed > to keeping branches local and merging later. Would there be any > downsides > to having a longer branch "path" ? Eg. for a Valgrind specific > feature, > the branch would be features/valgrind/my-feature.
I don't think that there is a problem with these longer branch names. Your idea sounds good to me. --Severin _______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
