On 11/30/2012 04:22 AM, Robert wrote:
My github account is eskimor. I think the model described in:
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
I have just been reading that for advice and find the --no-ff comments
confusing. Can you explain that please? I see two contradicting claims.
Also you have been added as a member.
is a really good one, to get started. If we want to keep changes to a
minimum, then the development branch in the model could simply be the
current master.
The master branch in the model would be the master branch of dmd-stable.
I agree that we should be smart about this, but I'm not quite following
you. Please explain the best design that you have in mind.
In my mind, stable is just an abstraction over the stable branch, we
should be working as close to the development branch as we can, to
prevent useless duplication.
Feature branches already exist in form of pull requests.
Release/hotfix branches would have to be introduced. A little education
of people would be needed. (E.g. where and when to merge things,
bugs/features.) Where and how changes are documented.
Exactly. We develop a standard. We follow that standard.
I would volunteer to help writing an automatic upgrade tool. We should,
define things there, so reports of breaking changes/deprecations, the
developers provide, could then be already in a format the tool can
understand.
Very good! And yes, I think that a proper automatic upgrade tool(and
warning system!) should work with the existing systems as much as
possible. That would be beautiful.
You are in the "Trusted" team on the project since everything is in
flux. Expect to move or be moved to a team that is limited to something
similar to a tools repo for what you want to work on.
If you want to actually get started, I'll create a Tools repo(or a
better name?) and give you commit access. But right now, you do not
have commit access.
