On 4 December 2013 12:03, Jeremy Ong <jeremycong@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe I should have said "github" world. Many organizations and open source projects choose to make it the lowest branch in the hierarchy specifically because it *is* the default. I wasn't aware that boost uses nvie's gitflow. There are many that feel it's a bit overengineered, but if it's specified somewhere that that is what we're using then eschewing the defaults is fine.
Use of GitHub is orthogonal to development workflow. Somewhat 'traditionally', GitHub is perceived as an incubator of fast yet agile Ruby/... web shops which don't rely on a typical release model, but they constantly roll releases. Boost is not a rolling release based project! I will conclude with Scott Chacon's blog (http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html) """ For teams that have to do formal releases on a longer term interval (a few weeks to a few months between releases), and be able to do hot-fixes and maintenance branches and other things that arise from shipping so infrequently, git-flow makes sense and I would highly advocate it’s use. For teams that have set up a culture of shipping, who push to production every day, who are constantly testing and deploying, I would advocate picking something simpler like GitHub Flow. """ Best regards, -- Mateusz Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net