In my opinion, the problem with using a separate branch with longer-term work, rather than smaller PRs into the master, is that after several commits, say 10 or 20, it becomes much more difficult to rebase without running into nasty merge conflicts, especially when those conflicts are on an intermediate commit so one would have to remember what the code looked like at that point in time to properly fix the conflicts. To me, this invites issues such as duplicated code and slower progress.
-- Mike Dusenberry GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry Sent from my iPhone. > On May 25, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Berthold Reinwald <reinw...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> the discussion is less about (1), (2), or (3). As practiced so far, (3) is >> the way to go. >> >> The question is about (A) or (B). Curious was the Apache suggested >> practice is. > Apache is key on fostering open collaboration, so specifically about > branching, having a SystemML branch that is used for > collaboration/experimentation is probably preferable, as it gives > visibility to others on the community, enables iterative development trough > review of small patches, while shield the trunk of issues these experiments > can cause. > > I would just recommend to avoid making the branch stale, and keep rebasing > it with latest master, which will make integration much easier in the > future. > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
