A successful Git branching model

Brad Anderson eco at gnuk.net
Mon Jul 30 00:49:51 PDT 2012


On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Russel Winder <russel at winder.org.uk>wrote:

> I don't really see the advantage of separating develop and master.
>
>
master isn't strictly necessary since everything is tagged anyway.  It just
serves as a nice way to see the current release's source code (a pointer to
the latest release). You could just use "master" in place of "develop" and
have a "production" branch fill the role that "master" does in this model
just as easily.


> And personally I am not a great fan of having feature branches in the
> mainline repository.
>
>
They aren't in this model. If you need to share a feature branch with
someone else prior to a pull request they can just pull from your branch on
GitHub directly.


> There is a lot about the document and the ideas that are good, but I
> don't follow the whole model. For me master is the development branch –
> and if using continuous delivery can always be branched and released.
> All major and minor releases have separate maintenance branches. with
> bugfix releases being tags on that.  This seems enough, I am not sure of
> the usefulness of anything more complex. But I may be missing something.
>

It can be modified to fit whatever the need is, of course, but there is a
lot of value in how well it is documented.  Any changes made or alternative
models used should be well documented too to lower the barrier to entry for
contributors. Everyone needs to be working from the same mental model.

Regards,
Brad Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120730/cf820e76/attachment.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list