That workflow seems good to me.
This model depends quite heavily upon having at least two permanent branches. A
stable master and an unstable testing and perhaps also a (semi-stable) bug
fixes branch. Are you suggesting that we should adopt this for Plplot?
The basic workflow would be:
1) When you want to work on a topic, branch from master (never from testing).
2) If your work depends on work in another topic that hasn't been merged into
master then merge the other topic into your topic.
3) Never ever merge master into a topic.
4) When a topic is complete merge it into testing and perhaps into bug-fixes.
5) At release time or every now and then, the release manager takes all the
stable topics and merges them into master.
The only downside I see is that 2) and 5) are a bit fiddly because the topic
branches are never published so you have to search for merge points into
testing, get their hashes and use them for merging.
One advantage would be that it would force us to evaluate what should be moved
to master fairly often, otherwise 2) will become rather cumbersome. I do think
it is probably a pretty good workflow to adopt. If it works for cmake there is
no reason why it shouldn't work for us.
Phil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Plplot-devel mailing list
Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
