On 2017-05-21, Dominik Psenner wrote: > To me the gitflow concept boils down to a way of tydying up the > historical mess that piles up over the years. The branch > feature/RollingFileAppender-NG dates actually back to 2012. I'd be > happy already if we had a naming convention for the different branch > types. From the branch name alone it is at the moment totally unclear > what i.e. the log4net-1.3 branch is actually about. It is written down > only somewhere in the mailing list archives that we have abandoned it.
I see. I'll rename it (to fix the short-term problem). > What do you think about a simple prefix scheme for named branches like > abandoned/x, feature/y, pullrequest/z,..? These are the three kinds of > branches I see at the moment. Works for me. Stefan
