Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Update submodules in boost.git
From: Cox, Michael (mhcox_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-05 20:07:17
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]
> > There was an agreement that the gitflow branching model shall be used.
> That is too strong. There was agreement to recommend git flow, but the only
> requirement is that there be a "master" and a "develop" branch, and that
> "master" be the library's latest release.
I've been seeing a lot of e-mail flying around where people seem to be
suggesting that development is done on the master instead of the develop
branch. If we're requiring that library repositories have a develop and a
master branch, is there a requirement that they be treated like the gitflow
model does, i.e. development occurs on a local feature branch that is
merged to the local develop branch and pushed to boostorg and releases are
created on the master branch by merging develop to master and pushing to
boostorg? If libraries are free to have there own policies, that's going
to get very confusing.
> Beyond that, libraries can do whatever they want in terms of workflow and
> branches. Git Flow is not the solution, it is a solution.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: