On 2 March 2012 11:18, Julian Gonggrijp <j.gonggrijp@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
on Thu Mar 01 2012, Daniel James <dnljms-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Which can be a good thing. Breaking a process down into smaller stages can make it easier. It seems to me that we've discussed git several times, and it's always part of a grand scheme.
If by "part of a grand scheme" you mean CMake, modularization or the Ryppl model in its entirety, I agree; but if you mean gitflow branching or the crude test image model that emerged from our discussion with Thomas Heller, I don't. I think both of the latter two ideas would involve only small, gradual changes which are best implemented (shortly) after the conversion to git is made. These are just a matter of "adapting to new opportunities".
I was referring more to previous discussions (including things that I've said). I have no idea how difficult it would be to switch to something like gitflow. I think I understand how gitflow is supposed to work in theory, but have no experience of how it works in practise.