Re: With feature branches, what is ever committed directly to master

From: Tim Visher <tim.visher@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 11, 2010, 14:48 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTik0kvKbe8xQksOrVVs6BygoPF7K_sZJA6BXwRVK@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin0VgH8CvnUn_tCJPTkhh7Ce-tYWo52qouoVvRN@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Bradley Wagner <bradley.wagner@hannonhill.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> I realize there are a lot of different Git workflows but I'm wondering
> how others in this community do it.
>
> We're using our "master" branch from our central repo (Beanstalk) as a
> dev branch and we have stable branches for various release versions of
> our software.
>
> We've not made as heavy use of feature branches yet as we should have.
> Once we do start using them more regularly, what kind of stuff is ever
> committed directly to "master" or is master typically the place where
> things are merged into from other stable/features branches?
>
> Is "master" really even unstable at that point?
>
> Thanks in advance! I realize this question is pretty open-ended.

Since no one mentioned it yet, I found this [paper][] to be an incredible resource and it's the workflow my team has adopted.

[paper]: http://nvie.com/git-model

-- 
In Christ,

Timmy V.

http://blog.twonegatives.com/
http://five.sentenc.es/ - Spend less time on e-mail