Thanks Joe, that makes sense to me. I support this endeavor. On 1/2/13 11:36 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
