+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 default) - 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 Cheers, Gilles 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".
