3 ms·
What we are doing git-wise is the reverse of what the article shows: Bug-fixes are (usually) done on the release-branches, while all feature development (except
by aaronblohowiak 17y ago
What we are doing git-wise is the reverse of what the article shows: Bug-fixes are (usually) done on the release-branches, while all feature development (except of these customizations) is done on the main branch (we just use the git default name "master").
I would just like to point out to git newbies that there is nothing special about the master branch in git except that it is a reasonable default. In terms of working on the release branch or working on master, there are no extra features or support from git, so the trade-off is only in what is easier for you and your team to remember.
- pilif 17y agoexactly. I used the term master because that's what we are using internally. We could have called it foobar of course :-) For the poster of the article, a stable (i.e slow moving) master was important, for us stable release branches. The head of their master only uses as new releases are made. Our master moves constantly and releases are tagged on the release-branches. It's really just a matter of terminology though. Another point I wanted to make with my post was that you don't need as many branches as the original article for quite the same advantages.