Where to store on-going development branches

[Cyrille Berger Skott]

On Tuesday 23 November 2010, Ian Monroe wrote:
> Personally I rather like the second option. It sounds a bit messy, but
> if you have some simple branch namespace management (prefixing with
> nick) it should be fine, and you can move old branches into a separate
> historic repo during periodic cleanings. Option 1 might have some
> advantages when it comes to dealing with permission issues.
I personnaly prefer option 2, since it gives a central place to access all the 
development. And since with git you don't have to have all branches on your 
local copy (right ?), it should not gives extra burden on cloning, hard drive 
and updating for people that are not interested in those branches.

And yes, when a branch is merged, or not updated for a year, we can move it to 
a history repository.

-- 
Cyrille Berger Skott