On Mar 15, 2015 14:44, Br. Samuel Springuel wrote: > > - 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).
Spinning off a x.x.x-rc branch is a great idea. In fact the chart liked by Elie is a good workflow. Once we get used to it, it should not be too much work or too confusing. > 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? No. This is how I have been working on this project. You may have noticed that my PRs come from eschwab:dev. I keep my master branch clean and do all work on other branches. Cleaning up the dev cycle is much needed and should help settle the versioning question. -Br. Elijah Schwab, O.Carm. _______________________________________________ Gregorio-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
