Subject: Re: With feature branches, what is ever committed directly to master

From: David Ripton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:05:36 -0400

On 08/10/10 15:02, Bradley Wagner wrote:
> I realize there are a lot of different Git workflows but I'm wondering
> how others in this community do it.
>
> We're using our "master" branch from our central repo (Beanstalk) as a
> dev branch and we have stable branches for various release versions of
> our software.
>
> We've not made as heavy use of feature branches yet as we should have.
> Once we do start using them more regularly, what kind of stuff is ever
> committed directly to "master" or is master typically the place where
> things are merged into from other stable/features branches?
>
> Is "master" really even unstable at that point?

If your repo is accessible to the public then I think it makes sense to 
have master be stable.  Because that's what people will see by default 
if they clone your repo, and you want to make a good first impression.

If it's a private repo that only insiders are allowed to see, then it 
doesn't matter as much.

Our team uses unstable master, which anyone on the team can push to.  If 
someone pushes to it then a build and tests automatically run, and if 
they succeed then that commit gets automatically pushed to the stable 
branch.  We let anyone create shared branches on the server if they want 
to collaborate on a feature.  We make a tag for each release, but we 
don't make a maintenance branch until we actually need it.

-- 
David Ripton    [email-masked]