Setup GitFlow for the repo

[fedenanni]

@kstamatis hi! Now that we are in two working on the repo, I would set up a proper git-flow to manage the interface. My suggestion is the following:

• we make dev the default branch (I can't do this as I don't think I am admin of the repo, I believe I only have read/write rights - could you check this?). The dev inferface (currently number 2) will be in sync with this branch
• we use master only for release versions and we make the master interface (currently number 3) in sync with this. We make release only at specific milestones (maybe end of March and end of the project, so August).
• for each issue we open a branch / PR from dev and when possible we review each other (especially I am always happy to review your changes like the wikipedia redirect one).

I'll add some tests on dev which needs to be passed

[kstamatis]

I have made you an Admin of this repository. So, I guess, you can do it yourself now. However, I do not know if this is a best idea, since, in most times, "master" is the default branch. We can keep the workflow as you mention it (have a dev branch, branch dev for solving an issue (feature or bug) and merge back to dev (using PRs) when finished). If we are happy with "dev" branch, we merge it back to "master". But our containers can be synced to any branch with worrying which one is the default. Am I wrong?

[kstamatis]

Just read the GitFlow documentation (https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow) and in deed, it mentions that the default branch should be the "dev" branch. Thus, I change it, you do not need to do it!

[fedenanni]

Hi Kostas, it's acutally a tiny difference and at the end it's mostly useful when developing code with a repo which is still private. It just means that when you open a PR the default branch on which you are merging is dev and when you open the webpage you'll see the dev branch by default. As soon as we have a "proper" master release we could switch back to the master as default branch.