You seem to be talking about the default 'master' branch. In general, we recommend not using a 'master' branch any more.
For a release branch (one that can have a dev release following it), use a branch name like 7.x-1.x For a topic branch, you can use any name you want, but it's often good to use a naming convention. For local topic branches I use something like [description]_[issue] or [description]_[issue]/[comment_number]. So for example, fix_broken_headers_99394 or fix_broken_headers_99394/22. For topic branches that you will push up, you may want to use a username on the front in some cases, to point out who the "owner" is. Then a branch could be named like rfay/fix_broken_headers_99394 I did a recent screencast about pushing and deleting topic branches, http://randyfay.com/node/96, that might be useful. -Randy On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Arlin Sandbulte <[email protected]>wrote: > There is a lot of discussion and ideas about git work flows right now. > It will probably take some time for best practices to evolve and gain > acceptance on d.o > > Regarding the main branch, others have said it seems pretty useless when a > release (dev in particular) cannot be attached to it anyway. > I think the only thing 'special' about main is that it is the default > checked out branch when cloning a repository. > So, what to do with it... > > I like the way the rules project seems to be handling it: > Just have a readme on the main branch noting that all files are located on > other branches and all work should be done there. (Even though this might > be a carryover from the good ole CVS days.) > Any other suggestions or words of wisdom? > -- Randy Fay Drupal Module and Site Development [email protected] +1 970.462.7450
