- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:58:59 +0100
- To: public-pointer-events@w3.org
On 07/04/2015 21:46, Arthur Barstow wrote: > I tend to like the way some repos only use a gh-pages branch and no > master branch. However, I don't know if that's a common practice nor if > it's considered a bit `anti-social` for contributors (f.ex. to have no > `master` for PRs). I favor that for my own stuff, mainly because it lowers the threshold for people to view the content (not having to fork, clone, or go through some third-party service like rawgit). AFAIK, not having a master only has negative technical effects if you try to integrate other automated tools, npm, or similar which expect a master. Alternatively, if you can make some post-commit hook that automagically grabs the latest master and updates a separate gh-pages branch, all the better. Regardless, I'd say master/gh-pages should always be the most up-to-date (editor's draft if you will) and any stable versions as separate branch (so we'd have "version 1.0", "version 1.0 - 24 feb 2015" or whatever other nomenclature works best with the current version, and work continues on master/gh) IMHO anyway, and sorry if stating the obvious. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 20:59:23 UTC