I don't think there's any advantage to creating them ahead of time, so we might as well not bother.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > Maybe I'm being coloured by the Chrome channels, but it seems to me that we > would be doing our "development" of the next release in "dev", rather than > unstable, and that bleeding edge Cordova users wanting the latest features > with no outright breakages but with higher possibility of bugs should use > "unstable". But I'm not sure how and when changes would move from one to > the other, whichever way around the names go. I'm imagining the flow would > be: > Feature branches ---ready to push--> my "dev" (your "unstable") > ---release candidate--> my "unstable" (your "dev") ---release--> > stable, tagged. > > Are we going to have branches for each minor release (ie. 2.3, 2.4) so that > we can do point releases on them? Or would those be created only as > necessary when we needed a point release? > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > I'm not clear on the difference between dev and unstable. If something is > > so shaky that we're considering not putting it in the next release, then > > I'd think that would go on a named feature branch (e.g. array_buffers). > > > > Unless... is the purpose of dev to be where we put together a release > > candidate? If so, maybe a better name would be "staging" > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > On 1/10/13 5:07 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > > > > >Thank you. I lean to agreement w/ Andrew that more meaningful pull > > > >reqs are better and having named branches for what they do makes > > > >sense. Also agree that tags are for points in time---but I take no > > > >exception to a branch for those as well for dev purposes. > > > > > > > >Let me try to capture the conversation to this point: > > > > > > > >Branches: > > > >- Master gets deleted. We want meaningful pull requests and this will > > > >force folks to pick a branch to dev against. > > > >- Stable: This is stable and frozen on the last tagged release. > > > >- Dev: The next release to be tagged. Feature branches merged from > > > >master when confident. This should build cleanly. > > > > > > ^^ merged from master? > > > > > > >- Unstable: the current working branch. Feature branches merged as > > > >needed for collaboration. No guarantee it builds. > > > > > > > >Tags: > > > >- Happen on the Stable branch. > > > > > > > >Workflow > > > >- Everyone works from local feature branch rebasing and committing to > > > >Unstable as neccessary. > > > >- When that feature branch is considered good enough, it is merged > into > > > >Dev. > > > >- On release date whatever is Dev is rebased to Stable. Tagged. > > Released. > > > > > > > >Thoughts? > > > > > > > > >
