Is this a good centralized DVCS workflow?

Posted by Chad Johnson on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Chad Johnson
Published on 2010-03-31T17:26:43Z Indexed on 2010/03/31 17:33 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 386

Filed under:
|

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?

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about dvcs

Related posts about mercurial