Hi Toralf, >IMHO the current "Forced update of the master branch" topic of the >mailing list is a good reminder to rethink about the current "git >commit" / "git push" / "git tag" policy.
The use of the master branch for development as well as major/minor release branches for maintenance isn't that bad. Also the tagging of revisions in the release branches is ok. The main issue here is the lack of using feature/idea branches during development. That concept means you do your development in separate/dedicated branches, off master, and only merge them into master as soon as they're ready for integration. This way problems affecting your branch (like accidental commits) are localized and don't require to "fix" master (as long as they noticed in time), affecting everybody. Ideally, a workflow along the lines of Vincent Driessen's "gitflow" would be established. Of course one could come up with a custom workflow that only covers what's actually needed to avoid unnecessary complexity, IOW, tailored for BOINC. One could even start out easy and adapt (improve) the workflow over time... See this for a few examples: https://www.atlassian.com/git/workflows This topic has already been discussed/proposed a number of times, and I'm obviously all for it. However, it's up to the BOINC project team to decide that. The hope has been that, given enough time following the migration from SVN to git, the BOINC team would have familiarized itself with git and its benefits to appreciate its flexibility and potential for improving the current development workflow. Not sure if that time has already come. But thanks for bringing up that topic again. Cheers, Oliver _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
