On 8/13/2014 4:38 PM, phil rosenberg wrote: > The impression I get from reading the docs and the post you linked Alan, is > that there is a tendency for people coming from svn to forget that git is a > distributed vcs. Perhaps some of these branches would be more at home in the > various developers own repositories. I cloned the repository today and > already generated two branches - partly to see how it works, but partly > because it is so useful to be able to do so.
Yes, I think we have agreed that the only branches in the SF repo should be "master", "next" and "release". All the other branches can live on cloned repos depending on user preference. If multiple people are going to work on them then they should be in a shared but "private" repo, not in the SF repo. > That said, if for example you clone the repository now and continue to > develop the cmake_test branch, but that branch gets deleted from the SF > repository, does that make it really painful to merge it back in? I have a > feeling the answer might be yes but I'm not sure. The fact that it has been removed from theS F repo should not be an issue. I don't think this is really any different from a topic branch which never existed in the repo in the first place. -Hazen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
