Re: With feature branches, what is ever committed directly to master
- From
Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 10, 2010, 19:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTik5MdbSFAN83B1D3ZbPmUutQ3ouqqAvYw+qECS1@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTin0VgH8CvnUn_tCJPTkhh7Ce-tYWo52qouoVvRN@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 14:02, Bradley Wagner <bradley.wagner@hannonhill.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> 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.
See here:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob_plain;f=MaintNotes;hb=todo
The `master' branch is indeed considered the most stable version of the software when it comes to the way `git' itself is maintained.