Suggestions for procedure going forward

[Robert Goldman]

On 11/18/15 Nov 18 -8:35 PM, Faré wrote:
> Yeah, there's an awkward merge or rebase happening when "stable" jumps
> from 3.1 to 3.2, whereas no such jump happens if old branches have
> numbered names and are forked off a master that keeps going forward.
> 

Surely git must have a solution to this problem?  There must be a ton of
projects that need to have a "stable" and a "development" branch.  So
this must arise all over the place....

Anyone know?