On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll recreate the issue there.
Sure, we're going to have overlapping trackers for a while (different ranges of issue numbers) so there's no problem. > I can see how C4 could be considered more democratic and less authoritarian > than git flow since anyone can fork for stabilization (equivalent to creating > a release branch in git flow). I also see how it could be less error-prone to > create a feature fork rather than a feature branch. But fundamentally I don't > see any significant differences in the two processes....both go from > features/bugfixes, to a probably-good-but-unblessed state, to a stabilization > (bugfix and testing only) state, to a released state. Perhaps we can catch up this thread later when you've used C4 for a while and seen how it works. We for sure use stabilization forks as gitflow uses branches, but that's only a small part of C4. The rest is about reducing barriers to learning, as a group, in a number of small but specific ways. The code emerges as we learn, and is our primary tool for learning more, rather than being the one-way product of educated minds. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
