Re: branch proposal (was: Re: Bug Fix vs. Development Branch)

[John Darrington]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 09:44:37AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
     OK, how about this then:
     
             - The "master" branch we are currently using remains the
               primary development branch.  Anything that introduces a
               new feature is committed to this branch.
     
             - We create a new branch, tentatively named "stable", and
               initially branched away from where "master" is now.
               Anything that fixes a bug is committed to this branch.
     
             - Periodically, as necessary, we merge the stable branch
               into the master branch, so that the master branch also
               receives bug fixes.
     
     Comments?

I'm still comming to terms with git, but SCM tools I've worked with in
the past normally make it possible to have a branch which
*automatically* inherits changes which are commited to its parent (ie
the thing it branches from).  Isn't this possible with git?

That's why my prefered option was to do the opposite of what you're
suggesting: The "master" branch (what I normally call the "trunk") is
the bug fix branch, and a new branch becomes the primary development
branch.   That way, the periodic merges aren't required --- bug fixes
are automatically in the development branch by virtue of the latter's
inheritence of the former.

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding how git works.

J'

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature