| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I would think that there would be a very small number of branches to the |
| 4 |
> main master tree. Those would be for the large projects like kde, |
| 5 |
> gnome,... They would still do their development work in their |
| 6 |
> overlays, then move them into a branch for final prep and checks, then |
| 7 |
> merge from there into master with one merge commit. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Any other small branches could live in developer space if they needed |
| 10 |
> to share them with one or two others. With git it is easy to add other |
| 11 |
> remotes to pull and checkout from. So, no need to clutter up the main |
| 12 |
> git repo with small experimental branches. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
++ |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
No reason to create barriers for devs maintaining branches in the main |
| 18 |
repo, but in general this should be done when there is a lot of |
| 19 |
collaboration going on, and not as a replacement for overlays/etc. |
| 20 |
You can have as many remotes as you want already. I recommend that |
| 21 |
devs use discretion. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives