I wouldn't have two separate branches for bugfixes and then one for new features - as you noted, it can get hairy. Personally I find the git-flow model very straightforward. Do normal feature development and bug fixes…
Exactly. Security through obscurity does not work (for long, at least).
Is there an argument to be made that the content providers only get 'paid' if the RSS reader is enticed to click through to the site? I'm all for neat services, but I think that this is a little bit unfair to the other…
I wouldn't have two separate branches for bugfixes and then one for new features - as you noted, it can get hairy. Personally I find the git-flow model very straightforward. Do normal feature development and bug fixes…
Exactly. Security through obscurity does not work (for long, at least).
Is there an argument to be made that the content providers only get 'paid' if the RSS reader is enticed to click through to the site? I'm all for neat services, but I think that this is a little bit unfair to the other…