Hi All, Please excuse my git ignorance- I'm new to it.
With the advent of git, does it make more sense to develop against the stable release (v1.6). svn was more about continuous integration and submitting patches against the trunk. On a lot of projects, people were running on the trunk, largely because there was no personal control over branches and merging. To efficiently do otherwise as a non-core commiter would require SVK or careful management of your codebases. With Git clones, the extra freedom makes branching and merging easier. With that, I was thinking: -fork main tracks repository on github -git clone my github fork to my development box -git clone my github cfork to my joyent account for deployment -joyent: branch tag v1.6 to "development".. via "git co v1.6 -b development" (is this correct, and is it doing what I expect?) -run on this -development box: branch tag v1.6 to "development". -commit changes to "development" branch on my github -pull from there to my joyent clone -when wanting to patch, merge from development to master on github and do a pull request. The benefits I see of this: -run off stable version -have a workflow that encourages my hacking on the code, and gives a means to publish to my deployed version as well as generate patches. Does this make any sense, or have I gone down a silly path. I recognize that maybe I should be using Capistrano, but haven't looked at that yet, and thought for now to model my use after how I use svn on my own projects. Thanks, Nick
_______________________________________________ Tracks-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss
