Hi TAsn, Thanks for the reply. In gitflow these are the standards and they need to work across different users hence why having the developer namespace is not quite enough. Additionally the hotfix is not catered for in our current scheme (as I understand it). One nice thing with gitflow is the plugin that manages all the branches for you. If you have custom schemes then every person looking to take up development has to configure it before getting started, so the defaults are best if possible.
I appreciate that consistency is important but taken so stringently it means we can never try anything new... An earlier discussion on GitFlow led to raster saying that he would need to see it working to understand the value - so I would like to do just that. I understand that folk don't necessarily see the value, but I have done and would like to try it for the projects that I am managing. That shouldn't be too onerous I think? Also as apps move from autotools to meson we already have a reduced consistency between projects. Thanks, Andy On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 at 11:34 Tom Hacohen <t...@stosb.com> wrote: > Heya, > > I don't quite understand what you are trying to do here. I mean, I > understand you are trying to have these, but what are these branches > for? If it's for you developing your own features why not put it in a > dev branch? > > We have these enforcements because we want to enforce branch names to > follow a consistent pattern across the repos. I don't mind changing it per > se, > though: > 1. I don't really see an obvious value with gitflow. > 2. I'd prefer if it was consistent across repos. > > Maybe people don't agree with this, but my take towards the e repos is > similar to that > of the GNU project. Have everything follow similar guidelines and be > mostly similar, > making it easier for devs to jump across projects. Yes, that > consistency sometimes > comes with a price, but I think that it's worth it. > > Looking forward to hearing what other people think. > > -- > Tom. > > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me> > wrote: > > Hi git admins, > > > > I'm setting up gitflow on Edi but I can't push to origin because of the > > branch naming rules. Can you please open up the ability to have remote > > branches matching the patterns "develop", "feature/*", "bugfix/*", > > "release/*", "hotfix/*" and "support/*"? > > > > I'd really appreciate it thanks. > > Oh and to those who worried about "changing to develop branch is an extra > > step" don't fear as HEAD can be pointed to develop instead of master if > > that's what folk are looking to have set up :) > > > > Cheers, > > Andrew > > > > -- > > http://andywilliams.me > > http://ajwillia.ms > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > _______________________________________________ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- http://andywilliams.me http://ajwillia.ms ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
