Hi All, +1 for me.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:34 AM Alexander Broekhuis <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not against this. But would like some more info on how we are going to > work with this. > > What is your proposal wrt feature, bugfix and release branches? > One concern I have is that last one. With a dev/master split, a release > branch can be used to prepare a release to master, while dev is used to > continue merging new features to. > How should we do that now? Maybe I am oversimplifying this, but IMO almost everything will be the same, expect that there is no master branch pointing to the latest release. So instead of creating a tag, merging to master and then merging to develop. The last part can be dropped. If we follow our release procedure [1] we also use a release branch and only the "Merge to master and create GIT tag" needs to change. I rather have that we move forward and when updating the website also update the "Merge to master and create GIT tag" of the release procedure. If any more documentation is needed we can address this on a later date. [1] https://celix.apache.org/contributing/releasing.html > > Before doing the actual change, can you draft up a developer page for it? > > Because of this, for now a -1. Will gladly change to a +1 if things are clear! > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Alexander Broekhuis > On 22 apr. 2020 19:22 +0200, Roy Lenferink <[email protected]>, wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to propose the idea of using the 'master' branch as our > > development branch. Why? > > - ASF releases are promoted through the ASF mirroring system. Our website > > is built on top of this > > allowing the user to select a mirror for downloading the release. Cloning > > the git repository is not > > the first thing a user does. Even if users plan to use the git repository > > they can use a specific tag. > > - The ASF allows committers to use a so-called .asf.yaml file [1] for > > changing repository settings. > > However, changes to this file are only propagated when made on the master > > (or trunk) branch. > > > > IMO our current workflow with develop/master just adds extra complexity. > > Other ASF projects are > > using the master branch as their development branch as well, e.g. Spark > > [2], Dubbo [3], Flink [4] & > > HBase[5]. > > > > If no objections within 72 hours I'll merge the 'develop' branch to our > > 'master' branch, update the > > current open pull requests to have 'master' as base branch, open a ticket > > to remove branch > > protection for the develop branch & update the website to point to the > > master branch for changes > > instead of the develop branch. > > > > See also [6] for a short discussion on this topic already. > > > > Best, > > Roy > > > > [1] https://s.apache.org/asfyaml > > [2] https://github.com/apache/spark > > [3] https://github.com/apache/dubbo > > [4] https://github.com/apache/flink > > [5] https://github.com/apache/hbase > > [6] https://github.com/apache/celix/pull/202#issuecomment-616429007
