On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > Am I correct when I say that, with this approach, master becomes a series > of merge commits coming from dev, then ? > That's correct!
> A couple questions to follow up: > > - "features get forked from stable" - forked from master, yes? Yes! Feature branches start off master, not off the dev branch because it's not stable and can change. > - "features, when ready, tested against dev branch" - what does this mean? > Does this mean, you would merge feature branch into dev branch (locally) > then run tests to make sure things work? > Yes! That way if things don't work, we know it's within the past month where we were changing things and have a much better shot of fixing them than if we're doing dev on master. It's a nice process tool to have when you're working on a feature that takes multiple months to find where your feature breaks instead of hunting through a git history or spending hours blindly debugging. I know that I've gone on way too many fishing expeditions in our source.
