I totally agree. We have a file for each chapter. We might just keep a trunk based approach mainly, and resort to short lived branches to allow writers to get their contributions reviewed.

Thank you for the advice

We opted for each file as a chapter. We already have the general structure. We are wondering what is the best approach. Maybe we should not have branches at all(?)

To be honest, in the beginning, I started with a branch for my own version of some chapters. We thought it was ok and merged into main. Maybe if we are going to use branches at all, having a branch for each author could make sense. We need to discuss this

This is great advice. I don’t believe we need a “stable” version. I mean, at a certain point our work will be ready and that’s it. We are not going to have different releases. We will have other formats (like a shorter version of this report), but in that case those would live as a different repository I guess

Yeah, I agree. I mean, we have different files for different chapters. So I guess a trunk based approach would work. Benefits from using a branch for each chapter variations might be needed, but only in specific cases. And to be honest, I think this does not really applies to us

Thank you for your reply! What are the “objects” possibly determining a branch? Features? Chapters? Writers? Releases?