On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:09 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. > +1 for only having one infinite-lifetime branch. > -- > 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. > >>>> > >>> >
