Open janekmi opened 3 years ago
The master
branch is thought of as the latest stable branch. The master_2_0
would be at that latest "milestone" (which was never well defined). At this point the two tend to be the same.
Fixes are still likely to be done on the master
/master_2_0
though probably not new features.
The Development
branch is for new features, support for new hardware revisions, etc and at this point is not well tested. Larger changes are going on this branch.
I see a pull request and will have someone take a look at that in the next couple of days.
So I understand the master
branch is the latest stable. At this point, it means it should be at any time equal to master_2_0
. But, when 03.00.00.xxxx will be released it will be equal to master_3_0
and so on. Is it correct?
It seems to me, you have a very tricky setup here because effectively it means you should have to have two copies of the same branch. One named master
whereas another named master_x_0
. Why keeping both copies? Won't be easier to just set master_x_0
as the default branch for this repository?
I really like the idea of describing in the README.md what each branch in the repo contains. I have noticed you are missing a description of what the
master
branch is. I have even tried to add it by myself but I have found the current state of affairs a little bit confusing/atypical. Which made me sure you need such a description.What I have noticed so far:
master
as a development branch (you have a dedicateddevelopment
branch)git log
it seems themaster
branch is a little bit like a development branch for the latest release (02.00.00.xxxx). But you have a dedicated branch for it calledmaster_2_0
So, what the
master
branch is for? Please help.