ext Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote: > A small detail might be inserted here. While its not mandated, "master" > is the generally accepted name of the "it works" branch of a repo. > Obviously, we can use "master-stable" but methinks it would be better to > have master be master and any other "less than working" branch be named > accordingly. > > But, this isn't all that important... just that I'm not sure I see a > reason for the deviation from convention.
So the main reason for us, as far as I know, is because we've been using Perforce like that for years. Though there is the realization that we need something more stable, and I hope eventually this will be 'master'. I think you caught 'master' at the wrong time though, since we've recently had quite a bit of development branches getting merged in. This, in combination with people going on holiday, has as far as I know led to one or more serious instabilities staying around longer than usual. > The concept of "push" is one of the broken concepts in SVN. Git is > based on the "pull" model. The flexibility of git has to do with how a > community operates WRT "core" repos vs "important" repos vs "some guy > made some change and we should take a look" repos. > ... > > One thing is becoming clear. The fact that there is a legal barrier > which effectively removes the bulk of the Qt development from group > participation is going to greatly limit Qt's evolution into a true > open-source project. That Qt rocks will carry it a long way, perhaps it > will even dominate... but it will be less than it could be. I don't understand why you think the "legal barrier" prevents group participation. With individuals as well as teams being able to set up their own clones on gitorious.org and requests merges once they have something ready, what still stands in the way of group participation in Qt development? Isn't this pretty much the pull model also used by the Kernel, btw? The main difference is that instead of one messiah and a bunch of disciples, we have over 100 trolls used to being on equal footing. As such, a hierarchical development model is at the moment no natural fit for Qt. Regards, Bjørn -- Thorbjørn Lindeijer Software Engineer Nokia, Qt Software _______________________________________________ Qt-creator mailing list Qt-creator@trolltech.com http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
