On 09-09-17 10:53, Guillermo Polito wrote:
> For those who may ask, we will not remove the master branch yet.
> This is because we are in the airport doing this and we would
> like to give it a better thought .
Let me share my thoughts, please tell me which ones need improvement:
1 Each branch creates overhead, just by existing: it means having to
choose where to commit, and the opportunity to make mistakes. Therefore:
only add branches that provide value, and remove ones that no longer do.
2 If a branch exists for a long time, it will diverge from trunk because
trunk changes. The longer it exists the more difficult it becomes to
understand the differences between branches. With git we can decrease
the gap by using rebase. Therefore: keep the lifetime of branches small
and do issue fixes as close as possible to trunk, using rebase where
possible.
3 We want to regularly provide releases to provide people building on
top of them feature and api stability. Therefore, each release becomes
a branch.
4 We want to do issue fixes to trunk and supported releases. A separate
branch for the issue fix makes it easier to back port issues.
5 To ensure the quality of changes, we use a separate repository instead
of an extra branch.
The separation of master and development branches does not add value, so
should be removed.
Looking forward to your thoughts,
Stephan
