Is this a good centralized DVCS workflow?
- by Chad Johnson
I'm leaning toward using Mercurial, coming from Subversion, and I'd like to maintain a centralized workflow like I had with Subversion. Here is what I am thinking:
stable (clone on server)
default (branch)
development (clone on server)
default (branch)
bugs (branch)
developer1 (clone on local machine)
developer2 (clone on local machine)
developer3 (clone on local machine)
feature1 (branch)
developer3 (clone on local machine)
feature2 (branch)
developer1 (clone on local machine)
developer2 (clone on local machine)
As far as branches vs. clones is concerned, does this workflow sense? Do I have things straight?
Also, the 'stable' clone IS the release. Does it make sense for the 'default' branch to be the release and what all other branches are ultimately merged into?