Skip to content

GitLab

Closed
Created by carignani@carignaniOwner

Branching convention

Context

The repository currently has the following branching structure:

  • A protected branch for every release (e.g. Rel15, Rel16)
  • An unprotected branch for each "meeting", against which people could make MRs
  • No master branch

The last one feels a bit weird, but since 3GPP undertake to maintain multiple releases concurrently it wasn't obvious to me what the "master" branch would mean. On the other hand, it seems weird not having one, and other 3GPP groups (e.g. SA5's trial appear to retain it.

One alternative could be to split each repo up per release. This more closely matches the actual behaviour of the specifications, since each is genuinely maintained independantly.

Question

  1. Is this the right strategy to adopt?

  2. Are we happy to remove the master branch?

  3. Would we be better off with a repository for each release, in order to keep the branches simpler?

Edited by carignani
To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information