I'm working with a team that is new to git. I'm not "new" to git, but I wouldn't describe myself as an expert. However, I've used almost every popular SCM tool that came before, since there were SCM tools.
Their original process was very primitive, simply committing and pushing directly to master, all in a single remote repo. I'm moving them towards a better process in steps. This week I'm transitioning them to creating feature branches and pull requests. I haven't advised them to have each developer fork the main repo and create the feature branch from that fork, I'm just having them create the feature branch from the main repo. I'm well aware that in large-scale open-source development, the fork approach is the only reasonable way to work. What I'd like to hear is clear and objective arguments for when the fork approach is critical, and when it might not be that critical, in the context of an internal commercial project. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
