Raman Gupta <rocketraman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... > If you wish to remove discussion of 'next' from this document, that is > probably better done in a separate followup change. Though personally > I think its a useful concept for readers to learn about as they are > setting up their own workflows. I do not have a particularly strong feeling about 'next' either way. As the document states at the top, it lists ingredients from git.git management and it is left up to the readers to adopt parts that suit their needs, while not using others. In that spirit, the description of 'next' as "ahead of master that is supposed to be rock solid" may be a good thing to keep. It is orthogonal if the project wants to rewind and rebuild 'next' after every feature release---they do not need to (and we didn't do so for quite some time). One valid choice by readers is to adopt the concept of 'next' in their project but never rewind and rebuild it, and you made that clear that it is optional. So I think this part of your patch is good as-is. >> Other parts (except for the "branch -f" bit I've already told you >> about in the other message) looked good. > > I'll add some discussion about the branch -f bit -- I hope you agree > that in this document that is distributed with git, some > beginner-level explanation of the difference between the branch -f and > the merge approach is warranted? Surely and thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
