Thanks. I think I get it- with the Git model, the main repository IS the stable branch.
I still see value in maintenance branches, but I see how it's lessened by the git model. And with a platform that is developer driven and leverages migrations, even more so. Thanks for all the responses- I've had a epiphany on the impact of Git on the developer workflow. Actually, I suppose it's not an epiphany if it had to hammered through my head. Anyway, thanks for all the responses! Regards, Nick On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Steven Bristol <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Nicholas Van Weerdenburg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm sure of my own preferences, but was curious about specific community > > practices. > > > > > Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your question. The best practice (IMHO) > is to fork the master of your choice (most fork my master as I think > it is still the "main" one). Then you'll have a master based on my > master. you can add a remote tracking branch that is directly from my > master so you can keep that branch current with me. Then you can do > your own development in your branch. You can cherry pick changes back > and forth and that way take what you like from the new "official" > release and contribute back whatever you'd like. > > Hope this helps, > > cheers, > steve > > > > -- Nicholas Van Weerdenburg --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lovd by Less" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lovdbyless?hl=en Who loves ya baby? -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
