README.md: missing description of what the master branch is

[janekmi]

I really like the idea of describing in the README.md what each branch in the repo contains. I have noticed you are missing a description of what the master branch is. I have even tried to add it by myself but I have found the current state of affairs a little bit confusing/atypical. Which made me sure you need such a description.

What I have noticed so far:

• You are not using master as a development branch (you have a dedicated development branch)
• From the git log it seems the master branch is a little bit like a development branch for the latest release (02.00.00.xxxx). But you have a dedicated branch for it called master_2_0

So, what the master branch is for? Please help.

[StevenPontsler]

The master branch is thought of as the latest stable branch. The master_2_0 would be at that latest "milestone" (which was never well defined). At this point the two tend to be the same.

Fixes are still likely to be done on the master/master_2_0 though probably not new features.

The Development branch is for new features, support for new hardware revisions, etc and at this point is not well tested. Larger changes are going on this branch.

I see a pull request and will have someone take a look at that in the next couple of days.

[janekmi]

So I understand the master branch is the latest stable. At this point, it means it should be at any time equal to master_2_0. But, when 03.00.00.xxxx will be released it will be equal to master_3_0 and so on. Is it correct?

It seems to me, you have a very tricky setup here because effectively it means you should have to have two copies of the same branch. One named master whereas another named master_x_0. Why keeping both copies? Won't be easier to just set master_x_0 as the default branch for this repository?