Re: [Doxygen-develop] [Doxygen-users] Doxygen's code repository has moved to GitHub

[Oleg B. <og...@gm...>]

Hi,

One of the challenges with git is that is flexible and allows for many
> work flows. There isn't one "right way", but there are some common
> workflows.
>
Just a note for former SVN users, who learn git. :) Branches and repos in
git are symmetric, there is no special branch like "trunk" (git may set up
some names as default for actions in its config, like 'master', but even
this is (I think always) reconfigurable). You can push any branch from
local repo to any branch in remote repo (and vice versa). And because repos
are symmetric I sometimes even find myself pushing (fetching) from one
local repo to another, when I want to avoid central storage.


>
> The most common workflow that I have seen is as follows:
> * most or all development happens on the master branch
> * each new feature gets it's own branch, which is merged or rebased with
> the master branch when it's mostly complete and doesn't break the build.
> * releases are cut as tags from master or from a version branch  or
> stable branch(i.e. potential branches: master, stable, 1.2.x, 1.3.x,
> tags: 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.1)
>
This is what I had in mind as well.
I have not tried github "pull requests" yet, but it seems to me that most
developers in open source project have their own repo mirrors and main
developer (+some dedicated) pull the changes into the main repo. In this
sense most fixes have their own repos..

Maybe it is reasonable to try separate branches for a set of features like
'C++ parser', 'python parser' where Dimitri (or dedicated user) pulls new
functionality without much review, so we can see it and try it out
together, and before release (or after thorough review) merges it all into
master and then merges the master branch back to every functionality
branch. Or maybe its just too complicated for a moderate size project..

Oleg