J’en profite pour “upper” le post que j’ai fait sur l’architecture social de contribution de zeromq : Architecture sociale de contribution
Git est compliqué, et pour éviter que les gens galèrent, ils :
- n’utilisent pas de branche sur le dépot principal
- ont une seule branche master qui est toujours fonctionnelle
- les développeurs passent par un fork / merge request (même les développeurs principaux)
Specs de ZeroMQ :
The project SHALL have one branch (“master”) that always holds the latest in-progress version and SHOULD always build.
This is redundant because every patch always builds but it’s worth restating. If the master doesn’t build (and pass its tests), someone needs waking up.
'll come to branches soon. In short (or “tl;dr”, as they say on the webs), branches make the repository too complex and fragile, and require up-front agreement, all of which are expensive and avoidable.
To make a stable release a Maintainer shall tag the repository. Stable releases SHALL always be released from the repository master.