On 10 Jun 2009, Felipe Contreras stated: > What do you propose instead? Have a "$version-stable" branch for each > and every release? That doesn't scale, the repository will be polluted > with branches that nobody use any more. Yes, exactly. Branches are (very) cheap. (In any case, someone might well use it. Maybe someone, five years from now, will have a reason to look at the latest stable 0.9.15 code.) > And it is a good use of git, remember that a branch is just a pointer, > and the pointer can jump from one commit to a complete unrelated one, > there's nothing wrong with that. Well, it's confusing for people pulling from the repo. > I still haven't heard an advantage of "$version-stable" over "stable". Long-term consistency of branch name -> version mapping. This really does matter (although going as far as the GCC project has and retaining twenty-year-old weekly snapshot tags 'just in case' might be going a *little* far).
