Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A successful Git branching model (2010)

nvie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 121 posts

Re: A successful Git branching model (2010)

#3

Post by watt »

The advice here given to avoid using "master" branch for development, and advice to create non-default branch named "develop" (or variations thereof) is quite harmful.

If you must have a "release" branch or "stable" branch, ok, go for it, but leave the "master" for developing. Why? Strive to have sane defaults.

Frankly, the idea that somebody must check out some extra special branch after cloning repo in order to start properly developing, is not sane.

Re: A successful Git branching model (2010)

#5

Post by brad0 »

watt wrote: post #3

The advice here given to avoid using "master" branch for development, and advice to create non-default branch named "develop" (or variations thereof) is quite harmful. If you must have a "release" branch or "stable" branch, ok, go for it, but leave the "master" for developing. Why? Strive to have sane defaults. Frankly, the idea that somebody must check out some extra special branch after cloning repo in order to sta…

I'm assuming you think it's harmful because master is the branch committed to and pushed by default?

Re: A successful Git branching model (2010)

#6

Post by mcv »

For a moment I thought: Has someone figured out something better than git-flow? But no, it's the original git-flow article again.

It's good, but now exactly "news". Every git user should be aware of git-flow, even if you do have a better way of using git.

Re: A successful Git branching model (2010)

#7

Post by watt »

brad0 wrote: post #5
watt wrote: post #3

The advice here given to avoid using "master" branch for development, and advice to create non-default branch named "develop" (or variations thereof) is quite harmful. If you must have a "release" branch or "stable" branch, ok, go for it, but leave the "master" for developing. Why? Strive to have sane defaults. Frankly, the idea that somebody must check out some extra special branch after cloning repo in order to sta…

I'm assuming you think it's harmful because master is the branch committed to and pushed by default?

Yes, because master is the default implicit branch. (Now, in git is possible to designate other branch as default, but folks who follow the advice in article often are not experienced enough to do it.)

I know a team that runs this branching model. It's quite surprising to hear statements "we never commit to master branch". "after cloning, always remember to switch to development branch". "when creating pull request, always remember if you used "development" as base". and then the mistakes eat up lot of cycles in the end.

Re: A successful Git branching model (2010)

#9

Post by _chris_ »

watt wrote: post #3

The advice here given to avoid using "master" branch for development, and advice to create non-default branch named "develop" (or variations thereof) is quite harmful. If you must have a "release" branch or "stable" branch, ok, go for it, but leave the "master" for developing. Why? Strive to have sane defaults. Frankly, the idea that somebody must check out some extra special branch after cloning repo in order to sta…

I find the idea that master is the default is exactly why it should not be the development branch. For open-source software, that's what people download and try to build -- it should always strive to be production ready.
Post reply on HN