Le 04/06/12 18:26, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
on Mon Jun 04 2012, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba"<vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le 04/06/12 03:18, Beman Dawes a écrit :
At the C++Now! session discussing moving to git and modularization, I showed the usual git flow overview graphic from http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ showing the workflow for a library.
Someone (Dave?) mentioned that the git flow choices for branch names were not what we would like for Boost. I agree, but don't recall the exact suggestions for more appropriate names.
The three branches in question, with the git-flow names in parens, were the main development branch (develop), release prep branches (?), and the branch with actual releases (master).
Is there a better usual convention for these names? I have a vague memory of someone mentioning "master" for the main development branch, "release" for the branch with the actual releases, and maybe "beta-x.xx.x" for release prep branches.
To try to avoid an extended bicycle shed discussion, perhaps people could mention names they have actually seen used and know worked well.
Hi,
I would expect to have a branch for each release and hotfix instead of all the releases sharing the same branch. If you read the git-flow docs carefully, you'll see that they don't exactly share a branch in any trivial sense. The system is carefully organized to prevent out-of-control branch proliferation and encourage forward propagation of hotfixes. I was responding to Beman post, which is proposing a specific work flow.
I think you've misunderstood git-flow. There's nothing particularly "fixed" about the branches; they seem to work very similarly to what you're proposing.
Again, I don't know git-flow. I just read the link given in the OP. Best, Vicente