branching strategie
Velrok opened this issue · 3 comments
I like how you create a new branch for each new feature. Also the f- prefix is very nice.
Here is a suggestion thou:
why not use the master branch as the default development branch and create a production branch for stable versions?
I am assuming that you are using the master branch as the brach that contains the current stable version?
Github direct all merge request to the master branch by default. So using the master branch as the develop branch would make living with github easier and also follow the convention.
Cheers.
since github is refering to master by default i'd prefere to have the stable version in master and another branch for development and testing purpose.. it seems that master is just some old stuff..
master is currently a mixture between a dev and a stable branch, since I just started it this weekend. The current live version is a bit behind. Commit 6117a61 to be exact. With the next release I wanted it to be kind of a stable branch.
The develop branch should contain all feature branches that are done but not yet released.
The f- branches are the place to implement new features that take more than one commit, separate testing or other more complex stuff.
That is my current idea. We can reconfigure github to use a diferent branch by default.
I added this information to the wiki in the versions section.