Henry's post mentioned that master is the default branch in git. That
got me thinking that if we put the official releases on their own
branches, then the user would have to specifically check out that branch
to install. That's an extra step for users who may not be really
comfortable with git (or on the command line). Despite the fact that
it's more complicated, perhaps something more like the following would
be better:
- master: all releases are on this branch, tagged appropriately. The
only changes made specifically on this branch are bug fixes which affect
the most recent stable version.
- develop: all code changes are merged to this branch. It represents
the cutting edge of development.
When we decide we're going to make a release, we make a new branch for
the beta (kind of like I suggested in what Élie quoted). Once we're
ready to go official, then this branch is merged into master and we tag
the master with the new release number. The beta branch would then be
deleted (not the commit history, just the branch identifier).
This is a bit more complicated (two long lived branches instead of one),
but it eliminates the need to check out a branch to install the stable
version after a git clone command. Would that make life easier for you,
the users? If you were a potential (or current) developer, would this
level of complication intimidate you?
✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝
Br. Samuel, OSB
(R. Padraic Springuel)
PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ
_______________________________________________
Gregorio-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
