Yes, Sam recommended the same thing in IRC.<br>Here is the relevant issue:<br><a href="http://drupal.org/node/1074960" target="_blank">http://drupal.org/node/1074960</a> - Let maintainers set a default branch on git repositories<br>
Discussion can continue there.<br><br>This lets module maintainers delete the master branch without creating a big WTF when someone clones the repository that does not have a master branch, or it does have a master branch, but it is not relevant to anything.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Randy Fay <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:randy@randyfay.com" target="_blank">randy@randyfay.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
You seem to be talking about the default 'master' branch. <br><br>In general, we recommend not using a 'master' branch any more.<br><br>For a release branch (one that can have a dev release following it), use a branch name like 7.x-1.x<br>
<br>For a topic branch, you can use any name you want, but it's often good to use a naming convention. <br><br>For local topic branches I use something like [description]_[issue] or [description]_[issue]/[comment_number]. So for example, fix_broken_headers_99394 or fix_broken_headers_99394/22.<br>
<br>For topic branches that you will push up, you may want to use a username on the front in some cases, to point out who the "owner" is. Then a branch could be named like<br><br>rfay/fix_broken_headers_99394<br>
<br>I did a recent screencast about pushing and deleting topic branches, <a href="http://randyfay.com/node/96" target="_blank">http://randyfay.com/node/96</a>, that might be useful.<br><br>-Randy<div><div></div><div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Arlin Sandbulte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arlinsandbulte@gmail.com" target="_blank">arlinsandbulte@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">There is a lot of discussion and ideas about git work flows right now.<br>It will probably take some time for best practices to evolve and gain acceptance on d.o<br>
<br>Regarding the main branch, others have said it seems pretty useless when a release (dev in particular) cannot be attached to it anyway.<br>
I think the only thing 'special' about main is that it is the default checked out branch when cloning a repository.<br>So, what to do with it...<br><br>I like the way the rules project seems to be handling it: <br>
Just have a readme on the main branch noting that all files are located on other branches and all work should be done there. (Even though this might be a carryover from the good ole CVS days.)<br>Any other suggestions or words of wisdom?<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div><font color="#888888">-- <br>Randy Fay<br>Drupal Module and Site Development<br><a href="mailto:randy@randyfay.com" target="_blank">randy@randyfay.com</a><br>+1 970.462.7450<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>