On a side note: If you do keep 'next' consider renaming it. As a native english speaker I assumed that rocks 'master' and 'next' were the equivalent of 'testing' and 'development' respectively. I assumed that 'next' held the newest, most unstable code. It was only when I stumbled upon the correct documentation that I understood.
When the structure of the group allows, I remove 'master' from my git repos. There are too many different git workflows and too many git tutorials using 'master' written by people that aren't yet experienced using git. New users to git always seem to be confused that the master branch is special in some way. Removing it creates a little more confusion and hand-holding in the beginning for the newbs but prevents bigger problems down the road. (Though since you are migrating to github you should adopt their workflow to best use their tools.) Finally, in my opinion, providing tools for maintaining a distribution (putting together a large collection of libraries/applications and selecting versions and build configuration for them so that they all work together without additional work by the end-user) and providing development automation tools to support developing a group of interdependent libraries with multiple source repositories, are different things. These two things have different work-flows and the person doing the work has to be in two different mindsets if he is doing both. -Traveler On 06/23/2014 02:46 PM, Sylvain Joyeux wrote: > > That's why I started to talk about separating the development workflow > of rock.core. During the weekend, I started thinking about also > dropping 'next' altogether. If noone is using stable, then let's just > remove the intermediary: _______________________________________________ Rock-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.dfki.de/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/rock-dev
