branching-strategy

Using TFS, we have the following: A main baseline A development branch for each development effort. These get merged back to the baseline. A release branch that is created with each release. Bug fixes are made here, released, and merged back to the baseline. Using shelvesets, we can share code across development branches if needed without contaminating the baseline. Useful for code reviews. When we deliver our development changes to baseline we have an automated build that kicks off and automatically places our changes on the test server. The problem is that the business analysts can't see our

We are trying to follow the gitflow branching model, but with a twist. We have have four servers environments where the product can be deployed to, each server serves a purpose : development, internal testing, external testing, and production. DevServer , where developers test their different features, while developing. Developers cannot test locally on their machines, they have to make their changes on the DevServer to be able to test TestServer , where QA testers test multiple features once developers are done ReleaseServer , where releases are tested in isolation before moving them to

I've noticed that some answers to questions about branch names quote the Mercurial wiki to indicate that the branch-per-feature or branch-per-bug naming conventions may cause performance problems. Does the ability to mark branches as closed with the --close-branch flag on commits have any affect on this performance claim? Martin Geisler Does the ability to mark branches as closed with the --close-branch flag on commits have any affect on this performance claim? Marking a branch closed with hg commit --close-branch merely creates a new changeset with a close=1 marker in the changeset meta data.