Also, I think short-lived feature/bugfix/etc. branches make sense in the form, "<apacheID>/ACCUMULO-<issue#>".
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > I can get behind this also, but I have an additional suggestion that > diverges from the proposed model at > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ (suggested > earlier in this thread): > > I'm not a fan of separate "master" and "develop" branches, since > "master" is only used as a pointer for tracking the latest and > greatest stable tag. I think just a "master" would be fine (for active > development on the next anticipated major release), because I think > it's safe to assume people know what tags are and how to use them if > they want a stable version. If we *really* need a pointer, I'd rather > call it "stable", as it's more explicit. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 6/4/13 9:35 AM, Keith Turner wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why? What problems are you thinking of w/ long-running minor release >>>> branches? >>>> >>> >>> I do not like them. It's mainly a personal opinion. Most modern SCM tools >>> (even that 'terrible' SVN) strongly encourage you to release early and >>> often. As such, I don't like having branches named like tags/releases. This >>> is mostly a personal opinion; however, you can also read that as opinions >>> after using git for ~5 years. >>> >> >> Discussed this w/ Christopher and Josh. I understand Josh's point of view >> a bit better now. One thing I was unsure about was what to name these >> transient branches for gathering bug fixes. Christopher suggested using >> snapshots, which seems very natural to me. >> >> * For serious bugs in 1.4.3 take 1.4.3 tag and create 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT >> branch >> * Merge bug fixes to 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT from bug fix branches >> * Eventually tag 1.4.4 and delete 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT branch >> * 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT would only be created on an as needed basis. >> >> I think this is nicer than leaving a 1.4 branch around. >> >> >>> >>>> >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. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> It seems like you have a specific workflow in mind, but its not clear to >>>> me >>>> exactly what you are thinking. Are you planning on elaborating on this >>>> tonight? Is this workflow written up somewhere? If its not written up, a >>>> few quick example scenarios would probably help me get on the same page. >>>> >>> >>> That's correct. I don't have the time to make a good write-up right now. >>> I'll try to outline what I think would work fully tonight, but I tried to >>> outline the general gist of what I think is best. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >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. >>>>> >>>>
