HI Alex,
right, I'm only saying that as part as the natural process, people should
not need to ask for agreement, since what is in develop should not go to
release. And if something need to be fixed in release it will happen there
(of course promoted by some discussion about something is not
On 10/5/19, 7:08 AM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
Hi Alex,
- release: Here's where I see differences. Once we decided we want to
release, is because develop has the final state to cut a release. No more
commits are needed for that release. So once a RM start the process and
Hi Alex,
I'm with the article exposed in [1], I think I'm using it since 2010.
But I think we have a different interpretation of a release branch. For
what I saw for almost 10 years using git is that we have:
- master: Is the "stable" branch with "released" content. So latest release
can be
Hi,
I think we may need to be more careful about branches and commits in the
future. I saw a fair number of merge conflicts for the RM to have to resolve
to merge the release branch back into develop. The use of cherry-picking may
be part of the problem. I wrote down my thoughts on the
