Re: scratch/igc as feature branch

[Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>]

Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:

> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> given a number of developers here are tracking and working cooperatively
>> on scratch/igc and the aim is to hopefully reach a mergable status,
>> shouldn't we move the development to a feature branch (read
>> feature/igc)?
>>
>> Typically feature branch are supposed to be tracked by other people
>> (read no force push allowed) and commit messages are already in the
>> format suggested by CONTRIBUTE.
>
> Can't speak for Helmut or Pip, but I find it too early to put
> restictions on developers :-).
>
> BTW, what's in for the developers when it becomes a feature branch?

- Tipically the guarantee that the branch is not force pushed (a PITA
for other developers tracking and working on the branch).

- It gives more visibility externally, so overt time more users can find
it, try it, and report issues.

- The fact that the branch is already worked with commits that will be
directly mergable without having to do a mega rebase afterward.  Also
the mega rebase would cancel all or part of the history which I find a
serious disadvantage.

It's indeed up to the developers of the branch, I'd personally find it
advantageous therefore my proposal but it's just me :)