For a project where users *only* really build the source code (ie. software libraries), then the "master as stable" approach is useful as it means the default clone is always stable. For projects where the majority of users download pre-built binaries (ie. Pd), I think "master as develop" makes sense since most people cloning will be building/developing the software and those that aren't can checkout a stable tag. So the emphasis is based on the predominant use case: in the former, the master as the release and the latter uses master as develop.
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 04:52:58 +0200From: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi@gmx.at>To: "Miller Puckette" <msp@ucsd.edu>Cc: pd-dev <pd-dev@lists.iem.at>Subject: Re: [PD-dev] keep master on github stableMessage-ID: <trinity-24063e5f-6755-4798-b27d-4d08994e7ee5-1536029578754@3c-app-gmx-bs59> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8I see. The reason I was asking is that many OSS projects have both master and develop branches so people can choose between the latest stable version and the newest stuff (accepting possible regressions). So all the real work would happens on the develop branch and whenever a release is out (after the feedback and bug fixes from the test releases) the master branch gets updated. but this is just an idea for the future. don't bother now :-)Christof