<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:33 PM, fly language wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">After git, mainline will still be the most important branch for the *project*,<br>
but you will work with quite a few branches on parallel.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Who's mainline? :) Be prepared to assign a super-merger, like Linus, to maintain the "mainline".</div><div><br>
</div><div>The git workflow works really really great, but it does require getting rid of mainline thinking. It doesn't exist.</div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>I strongly disagree with this. Having a mainline, whether enforced by the VCS or not, is crucial to our incremental development philosophy. For example, we need small, incremental patches going into one mainline branch in order for our buildbots to usefully identify regressions. We also bisect performance regressions quite a lot, but if someone goes off and does a bunch of development on a branch and then lands it in mainline all at once, we'll be completely unable to pinpoint the source of any regressions from that branch.</div></body></html>