On 2021-05-14 22:49:52+0900, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > +Available Branches > > +------------------ > > + > > +There are several branches on git.git with different purposes: > > + > > +master:: > > +This is the most stable branch. Changes (topics) that are merged > > +to master should have been stabilized in next and suitable for > > +production use. Feature releases (vX.Y.0) are cut from this > > +branch. > > Isn't "maint" meant to be more stable? > > > +next:: > > +This is where topics that haven't been yet merged to master are > > +stabilized and tested for breakage and regressions. It gives > > +a summary forecast of what next batch of topics that will be > > +merged to master looks like. > > + > > +seen:: > > +This is the most bleeding edge branch where all excited > > +developments happened. All proposed topics are queued in seen > > +by the maintainer. However, these may be buggy (have breakage or > > +regressions). When topics queued are deemed good and ready for > > +inclusion, they are graduated to next for stabilization. > > This is inconsistent with what has been written elsewhere about this > integration branch. In short, you should not read anything more > than "the maintainer happens to have seen these topics" out of the > fact that a topic is in 'seen'. Not all proposed topics will be in > this branch, and a branch that was in 'seen' on one day may not be > there the next day, but that does not mean anything (certainly it > does not mean the topic has been "rejected"). Well, I think most of this document's points has been written in Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt and Documentation/SubmittingPatches.txt. With only 2 above points, I think if we have this document in, we'll have more things to maintain :shrug: -- Danh
