pull requests to dev- vs. master-branch

[ulysses78]

Holger and I had a small discussion in the morning about what will be merged into dev- vs. master-branch.
Let's summarize when and what to merge into dev- vs. master-branch.

In my opinion we should handle it the following way:

dev	master
site-branches--->dev continous development enhacements bug fixes update of documentations	dev--->master hot fixes (critical errors)*

* If we do it the very correct way, then there wouldn't be any hot-fixes for the master-branch, since all the bugs would have been detected when testing the dev-branch. But that is of course only in theory ;-)

Finally that means, that every site-branch should be merged into the dev-branch. After extensive testing the scripts on the dev-branch, the dev-branch can be merged into the master-branch, as a new Picasso-Version X.Y.

[ulysses78]

FYI:
@HolgerPollyNet @ZPYin @martin-rdz @griesche

[ZPYin]

Yes, totally agree.

[ulysses78]

@ZPYin ... to realize the "correct way of merging" (see above), it would be nice if the dev and the master branch will be synchronized somehow at this point. Because some features and bugfixes were made in the master-branch in the last weeks (and not in the dev-branch). And some other works were pulled to the dev-branch (and not to the master yet).
That means, that we have to have "a new starting point" (dev == master branch), from where we can work as decided.

[ZPYin]

The current master branch has been merged into dev, where you can continue your development. I fixed some conflicts due to the co-developments in the two branches.

Please see details in PR #133

[ulysses78]

Thank you very much!

[ulysses78]

Same is here https://github.com/PollyNET/polly2earlinetDB

[ZPYin]

Done!

Thanks for mentioning it.

[ulysses78]

Thank you very much!

[ulysses78]

FYI: @martin-rdz