On 06/04/2012 06:14 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Sun Jun 03 2012, Beman Dawes<bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
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. That would be more conventional. It's an open question whether we're better off changing to the names that are the defaults (and documented) by git-flow, or we're better off choosing names that non-git-flow-ers will more easily recognize.
Branch names that non-git-flow-ers will more easily recognize are release and trunk. So trunk will in glt-flow change name to develop. Seriously, this is not worth thinking about as it will create a lot more confusion and grief with regard to git-flow documentation and tools. Keep the git-flow names. -- Bjørn And how may they be more