Apart from the main two branches, there are three other branches. All these branches should be created within develop branch.
Within? I thought that branches were separate entities; I don't think they are nested. You can create other branches based on the current HEAD of develop, but I've never heard the terminology "nested" before.
I hate to be pedantic but you will confuse people with that terminology. There are no such things as "sub" or "nested" branches. They are all "branches", they all have the same properties. There's even a "default" branch (master or main), but it is still a branch. There is no "trunk" in git; it can be modeled by a branch that everyone syncs to, but that's just convention. Under the hood they are all branches. Your three other purpose branches can be described as being "branched from" or "branched off of" devel. But if you wanted to then merge them back to "master", you could, with a little git magic.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Within? I thought that branches were separate entities; I don't think they are nested. You can create other branches based on the current HEAD of develop, but I've never heard the terminology "nested" before.
They're created as sub-branches of the develop, that's what i meant. Thanks
I hate to be pedantic but you will confuse people with that terminology. There are no such things as "sub" or "nested" branches. They are all "branches", they all have the same properties. There's even a "default" branch (master or main), but it is still a branch. There is no "trunk" in git; it can be modeled by a branch that everyone syncs to, but that's just convention. Under the hood they are all branches. Your three other purpose branches can be described as being "branched from" or "branched off of" devel. But if you wanted to then merge them back to "master", you could, with a little git magic.