<div dir="ltr">What I was suggesting was.<div><br></div><div style>All work is done in our own forks/branches.</div><div style>We make a pull request and someone else in the team must review and pull it into master when we are happy with it. This way we get code review, and these two people become responsible if something breaks.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Branching and tagging for release is separate.</div><div style>We make a 1.6 branch off of master, this is not committed to directly, all new work goes into master, we just cherry-pick bug fixes from master.</div>
<div style>If we want a new feature, or master and 1.6 diverge so far that we can no longer cherry-pick bug fixes we make a new branch from master and bump the 6.</div><div style>Tags signify releases on a branch. They should be done at stable points. 1.6.0 is the first stable point on the 1.6 branch.</div>
<div style>We make new tags after pulling in fixes from master and when we think it is stable.</div><div style>We Tag often...?</div><div style><br></div><div style>does this sound sensible?</div><div style><br></div></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Matt Jadud <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt@jadud.com" target="_blank">matt@jadud.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all,<div><br></div><div>I'm unclear about the branch tagging question.</div><div><br></div><div>Should we:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Tag at known good points, and</div><div>2. Do all development in trunk?</div>
<div><br></div><div>or </div><div><br></div><div>1. Tag as we start work, and </div><div>2. Do development in a branch?</div><div><br></div><div>With git, it seems like the natural workflow is:</div>
<div><br></div><div>1. Tag releases/feature points</div><div>2. Fork to explore/fix.</div><div>3. Request merges to bring them into trunk.</div><div>4. Branch for extended explorations</div><div>
<br></div><div>I'm sure there's a workflow description out there for using git efficiently. I guess I'm just wondering /confused by the recent branching conversation---why would we do all our work in a branch, and then... merge back to trunk, as opposed to doing our work, and tagging at a point that we might want people to do a checkout?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Or, did I confuse things horribly? I spent a good chunk of time with a screaming baby last night, so do please excuse the confusion.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>
Matt</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
developers mailing list<br>
developers@concurrency.cc<br>
<a href="http://lists.concurrency.cc/mailman/listinfo/developers" target="_blank">http://lists.concurrency.cc/mailman/listinfo/developers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>