[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Developer branches

From: Gianni Mariani
Subject: Re: Developer branches
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:30:06 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221

I've found that is you plan to make a 'disturbing' change, it's best to do that in a branch - get it working and merge it in. The idea is that the HEAD branch *must* always build (at least after a short period (hours max) of instability). So multiple dev branches for big collaborative changes is the method that seems to work best for me.

Paul Sander wrote:

Another approach that doesn't require developers to perform as many merges
is to implement a hand-off procedure that declares certain versions as
eligible for the build.  This can be as simple as applying tags, or it could
be more complicated.  That way, the developers and the builders can share
the same branch and yet still have some recourse if someone commits garbage.

Check the info-cvs archives for "submit/assemble" for discussion of one
successful method that doesn't rely on tags.

--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

We are using CVS to store Java source code.  Currently, all developers in
the project are directly commiting against HEAD.  We would like (as much as
possible) to keep HEAD in a stable state and so would like to start using
branches to create a dev environment.

Is this better approached by creating a single DEV branch or creating
seperate dev branches for each individual developer?  What are people's
experiences with either approach?

--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden

Info-cvs mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]