You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Can we please discuss the use of release branches versus release tags (i.e. rel3 branch vs tagging a version number onto the master branch)? One thing I like about release tags rather than release branches is that it is much more difficult to mess them up (i.e. you can accidentally append a commit onto the branch after it's been released). Release tags point to a specific commit and make it easier to disseminate.
It makes perfect sense to begin developing toward a rev3 release but, stable and merged rev1/rev2/rev3/etc commits are often marked as tags in master; official releases are then released off of master to ease the task of external users downloading the package appropriately. Deprecating master to progress further on a rev3 branch would (I believe) be confusing as the goal of a branch is to break off until development has matured, to eventually be merged back into the master branch. Contributors could also be left committing to a stale branch, not knowing that another had been made active. From my understanding, moving the primary branch from master to rev3 would deviate from common git practices.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
jcstaudt
added
question
Questions more than bug reports or feature requests (e.g. how do I do X)
feedback
General feedback more than bug reports or feature requests
labels
Mar 5, 2019
Can we please discuss the use of release branches versus release tags (i.e. rel3 branch vs tagging a version number onto the master branch)? One thing I like about release tags rather than release branches is that it is much more difficult to mess them up (i.e. you can accidentally append a commit onto the branch after it's been released). Release tags point to a specific commit and make it easier to disseminate.
It makes perfect sense to begin developing toward a rev3 release but, stable and merged rev1/rev2/rev3/etc commits are often marked as tags in master; official releases are then released off of master to ease the task of external users downloading the package appropriately. Deprecating master to progress further on a rev3 branch would (I believe) be confusing as the goal of a branch is to break off until development has matured, to eventually be merged back into the master branch. Contributors could also be left committing to a stale branch, not knowing that another had been made active. From my understanding, moving the primary branch from master to rev3 would deviate from common git practices.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: