presented. I don't feel like "1.5.x" or "1.5-dev" tell me anything
more than "1.5" already did so they just turn into more typing. I
don't really think there's a high chance that we ever abandon x.y.z
version strings, so there isn't a big chance for it to look like a
release.
For context, Hadoop (and other related projects) tend to do a
"branch-X" and "branch-X.Y". For the same reasons as above, I feel
like the "branch-" is unnecessary.
Is anyone else concerned about potential confusion having "x.y" branch
names?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org>
wrote:
+1 to static dev branch names per release series. (this would also fix
the
Jenkins spam when the builds break due to branch name changes)
However, I kind of prefer 1.5.x or 1.5-dev, or similar, over simply 1.5,
which looks so much like a release version that I wouldn't want it to
generate any confusion.
Also, for reference, here's a few git commands that might help some
people
avoid the situation that happened:
git remote update
git remote prune $(git remote)
git config --global push.default current # git< 1.8
git config --global push.default simple # git>= 1.8
The situation seems to primarily have occurred because of some pushes
that
succeeded because the local clone was not aware that the remote branches
had disappeared. Pruning will clean those up, so that you'll get an
error
if you try to push. Simple/current push strategy will ensure you don't
push
all matching branches by default. Josh's proposed solution makes it less
likely the branches will disappear/change on a remote, but these are
still
useful git commands to be aware of, and are related enough to this
situation, I thought I'd share.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com>
wrote:
After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to
the
conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I
believe I
was the one who primarily argued for branch names as they are current
implemented, so take that as you want).
* Trying to making a new branch for the "next" version as a release is
happening forces you to fight with Maven. Maven expects that your
"next" is
going to be on the same branch and the way it makes commits and bumps
versions for you encourages this. Using a new branch for "next" is more
manual work for the release manager.
* The time after we make a release, there's a bit of confusion (I do it
too, just not publicly... yet) about "what branch do I put this fix for
_version_ in?". It's not uncommon to put it in the "old" branch instead
of
the new one. The problem arises when the old branch has already been
deleted. If a developer has an old version of that branch, there's
nothing
to tell them "hey, your copy of this branch is behind the remote's copy
of
this branch. I'm not accepting your push!" Having a single branch for a
release line removes this hassle.
"Pictorially", I'm thinking we would change from the active branches
{1.5.3-SNAPSHOT, 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT, 1.6.2-SNAPSHOT, master} to {1.5, 1.6,
master}. (where a git tag would exist for the 1.6.1 RCs).
IIRC, the big argument for per-release branches was of encouraging
frequent, targeted branches (I know the changes for this version go in
this
branch). I think most of this can be mitigated by keeping up with
frequent
releases and coordination with the individual cutting the release.
In short, I'm of the opinion that I think we should drop the
".z-SNAPSHOT"
suffix from branch names (e.g. 1.5.3-SNAPSHOT) and move to a shorter
"x.y"
(e.g. 1.5) that exists for the lifetime of that version. I think we
could
also use this approach if/when we change our versioning to start using
the
"x" component of "x.y.z".
Thoughts?
- Josh
