On Thursday, January 1, 2015 11:44:53 AM UTC+10, Ismael VC wrote: > > I didn't know that fact about the Linux kernel, or how usual it is, I've > just red the git book and it explains it like this: > > http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Branching-Branching-Workflows > > > > And just under that diagram it says:
We will go into more detail about the various possible workflows for your Git project in Chapter 5 <http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/ch05/_distributed_git>, so before you decide which branching scheme your next project will use, be sure to read that chapter. Chapter 5 is more on distributed projects such as Julia (and Linux :). Cheers Lex On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 7:30 PM, <ele...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, January 1, 2015 9:55:11 AM UTC+10, Ismael VC wrote: >>> >>> +1 to addering to the git flow, I had also allways expected for the >>> master branch to be as stable and possible, while development happening in >>> another branch, not the other way around and sometimes I've had to search >>> for a past working commit in order to build julia, which strikes me as odd, >>> as you guys really follow good development techniques. >>> >> >> Well, using master as the development branch is the Linux Kernal >> workflow, so I doubt you can call it unusual. It is also the approach >> mostly used in the git book chapter >> http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows. >> >> Really experimental things are in feature branches which will eventually >> be merged into master. >> >> Stable is the release 0.3 branch. >> >> When the first 0.4 RCs are made, a branch will be made for 0.4. >> >> Cheers >> Lex >> >> PS thats as I understand the workflow as an outside observer, so consider >> this the test to see how understandable Julia's workflow is. >> >> >>> >>> Would it be difficult to change this, maybe for a post 0.4 era? >>> >>> El lunes, 29 de diciembre de 2014 10:36:19 UTC-6, Christian Peel >>> escribió: >>>> >>>> Dan Luu has a critique of Julia up at http://danluu.com/julialang/ >>>> (reddit thread at http://bit.ly/1wwgnks) >>>> Is the language feature-complete enough that there could be an entire >>>> point release that targeted some of the less-flashy things he mentioned? >>>> I.e. commented code, better testing, error handling, and just fixing >>>> bugs? If it's not there, is there any thoughts on when it would be? >>>> >>>> >
