Where to store on-going development branches

[Ian Monroe]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Cyrille Berger Skott
<cberger at cberger.net> wrote:
> 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.

Hm, maybe? Normally you'd download them all. But these work branches
won't add much to the size of the repo at all.

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

Yep. And its pretty easy to sort out the old branches from the new
ones on gitweb.

Ian