Subject: Re: [boost] [git/modularization] Suggested names for branches?
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-10 03:25:36
On 06/04/2012 06:14 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Jun 03 2012, Beman Dawes<bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
>> At the C++Now! session discussing moving to git and modularization, I
>> showed the usual git flow overview graphic from
>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ showing the
>> workflow for a library.
>> Someone (Dave?) mentioned that the git flow choices for branch names
>> were not what we would like for Boost. I agree, but don't recall the
>> exact suggestions for more appropriate names.
>> The three branches in question, with the git-flow names in parens,
>> were the main development branch (develop), release prep branches (?),
>> and the branch with actual releases (master).
>> Is there a better usual convention for these names? I have a vague
>> memory of someone mentioning "master" for the main development branch,
>> "release" for the branch with the actual releases, and maybe
>> "beta-x.xx.x" for release prep branches.
> That would be more conventional. It's an open question whether we're
> better off changing to the names that are the defaults (and documented)
> by git-flow, or we're better off choosing names that non-git-flow-ers
> will more easily recognize.
Branch names that non-git-flow-ers will more easily recognize are
release and trunk. So trunk will in glt-flow change name to develop.
Seriously, this is not worth thinking about as it will create a lot more
confusion and grief with regard to git-flow documentation and tools.
Keep the git-flow names.
-- Bjørn And how may they be more
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk