On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:49:41 +1300, Rene Gollent <anevilyak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Clemens <clemens.zeidler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:What I was thinking of is a R2 branch not really a R1 feature branch. A R2branch should have similar standards as the current branch! There should still be private branches to keep the quality of the main branch high. Similar to the two git workflow links...So in essence you're contradicting yourself, since if you agree with the above then you'll still be developing e.g. session management in a github branch until it's stable and ready to merge into this hypothetical R2, which is exactly what you complained about having to do initially. So exactly how is this different again? The only thing you're doing is introducing extra work since this would simply imply that you'd have the additional work of merging changes and bugfixes from R1 to R2 in addition to your feature branch work.
I haven't said I want to stop using git and thus I assumed that it is clear that there are local (github) branches!
Something what Ryan posted: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/What I'm saying is: at the moment there is no post R1 feature "develop" branch (R2 branch) that is needed for a "A successful Git branching model" (see link).
Frankly the only thing I get from this discussion is that all you want to do is develop features and have everybody else do the bug fixing for you afterwards.
I have no clue where you got that idea from.
Regards,
Clemens
