On 09/01/11 - 11:02:35AM, Chris Alfonso wrote:
Feature branches have been very useful for other projects I've
been working on. Rather than having one bleeding edge branch to take
all the latest and greatest features, feature branches provide a
couple benefits over one "next" branch. For instance, if there are
multiple commiters that need to collaborate on a feature that isn't
ready to introduce to the larger audience, or if the patch set is
under development for a longer period of time git allows you to do
continual rebasing, and patch sets that are related can be set aside
if needed then come back to them later, without having to rebase
interactive and put everything back together in order.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against feature branches. I think they
are super useful and we should be using them all of the time. The part that
I am not convinced about is "master is always deployable". We tried that,
and it didn't work. The problem is that people who want stability grab the
packages from the last stable release. The people who want to develop grab
the latest development head from git. There is no audience for this in-between
"always deployable" branch.
--
Chris Lalancette