Op do 23 apr. 2020 om 09:10 schreef Pepijn Noltes <[email protected]>:
> 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. > Sounds good enough for me. Perhaps this is me lacking some git knowledge, but the tag is on the branch, and the branch can be deleted later. Is that a problem? Just asking to be sure. I think it is important to be able to continue on master with new development. > > 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. > What's the rush with this? Let's do it properly at once. It is not like we are having any problems at the moment. Also IMHO, I don't think what I am requesting is anything difficult/strange. Like I said, I am in favour, but just prefer to do it in one go... > > [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 > -- Met vriendelijke groet, Alexander Broekhuis
