Yay, Git. Wait...
I was going to wait to respond until I collected all of the info, but
since I still haven't gotten that done yet, I figured I should just say
"sure".
The one thing I do want to get hammered out is the general workflow we
plan to use. I believe that one "unstable" or "development" branch will
satisfy most use cases as we typically don't have much active
development against previous major releases.
The thing I don't care for (putting it mildly) is long-running
minor-release branches. I'm curious of suggestions that people might
have for how to work around this. One possibility would be to be git-tag
heavy while being more lax on official apache releases.
Merits:
- Less merging through 2-3 branches which a bug-fix might apply
(1.4->1.5->1.6)
- Less clutter in the branch space (could be moot if we impose some sort
of "hierarchy" in branch names, e.g. bugfixes/ACCUMULO-XXXX,
minor/ACCUMULO-XXXX)
- Quicker availability of fixes for consumers (after a fix, a new tag is
made)
Downsides:
- Could create more work for us as we would be noting new minor
releases. Does Christopher's release work mitigate some/most of this?
- Creating git-tags without making an official release _might_ skirt a
line on ASF releases. Some artifact that is intended for public
consumption is meant to follow the release process.
Personally, I'd consider making the bold assumption that, over time, we
will create the infrastructure for ourselves to make better and better
releases which will also mitigate this. I'm curious what everyone else
thinks.
I'll try to make time tonight to get info on all of the necessary below.
On 6/1/13 4:28 PM, Christopher wrote:
Reviewing this thread, it seems everyone is pretty much in favor of
this. I propose we proceed by electing a "git transition advisor"...
someone who:
1) is sufficiently knowledgeable with git to identify roadblocks
during the transition and is willing to make it a point to propose and
follow through with solutions,
2) can serve as the main point of contact with INFRA tickets related
to the transition,
3) can advise other developers on best practices for things like when
to branch, where to put contribs, when to delete a branch (if ever),
etc. for things related to the shared repo.
Item 3 is really something we can all do to the extent that our
expertise allows, but it'd be nice to have somebody willing to do item
2, in the context of their experience in item 1.
I would like to nominate Josh Elser, because I think he's qualified,
and because his exact response to this inquiry was "Yay, git."
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
I'm sure this has been entertained before, I'm starting to think that
we should seriously consider switching to git, maybe sooner (during
1.6 development cycle?).
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
