+1 for using branches : branch usage is less error prone plus git makes
branching unexpensive.

as far as i am concerned, i'd rather have the default master branch is
the for the "stable" version
and have one branch called devel (or dev, or whatever) :
- git clone => get the stable (aka master) branch by default (safe by
- if you use the devel branch, one can only assume you know what you are
doing ...

That being said, tags on the master branch is a good practice



On 2014/06/25 2:33, Christoph Niethammer wrote:
> As an alternative idea: What about using branches to mark "stable" and 
> "development"?
> Tags are for fixed versions and so users will not receive updates unless they 
> update their update scripts manually?!
> When "development" is stable just merge into "stable".

Reply via email to