I don't have much weight here, but personally I feel that this seems backwards.
With this proposal (if I understand it), when you do a fresh checkout of the codebase, instead of sitting on the bleeding edge, you would be sitting at a "stable" release which is conceptually read-only for most contributors (writes happen in the form of batch "releases" which itself would just be some git-fu to rebase master). I am happy enough to have features be worked on in branches etc, I just think that it should be flipped and the stable release be the branch and dev to be on master. As a separate issue, I would suggest not using branches to "name" point releases, but just tag them. If you have a 2.3.0 release, and you need to fix a bug in 2.3.1, those should not become two logically separate code branches with independent dev, but rather they are a logically single timeline with many names for each historically significant commit, right? Thats what tags are for (http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Basics-Tagging). -Michal On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Gord Tanner <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is what we have done in ripple (and webworks) > > master - always stable current shipping code > next - always 'stable' next release. Expectation that code has been tested > / run before merged into this branch. > feature branches - branched off of next and merged into next when stable / > done. Not expected to be stable or runnable until merge time. > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Am I correct when I say that, with this approach, master becomes a series > > of merge commits coming from dev, then ? > > > > A couple questions to follow up: > > > > - "features get forked from stable" - forked from master, yes? > > - "features, when ready, tested against dev branch" - what does this > mean? > > Does this mean, you would merge feature branch into dev branch (locally) > > then run tests to make sure things work? > > > > On 1/2/13 11:19 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >OK, Let's rethink this: > > > > > >After talking with Brian on the 21st, I think we agree on this: > > > > > > * Master remains stable and sits at the most recent released code > > >(i.e. 2.3.0 once we get 2.3.0 done) (Stable Channel) > > > * Dev happens on branches for the releases (i.e. 2.4.0) (Dev Channel) > > > * In the case of a point release, dev happens in the branch of the > > >major release (i.e. 2.3.1 would happen in the 2.3.0 branch, not > > >master) (Testing Channel) > > > * Features get forked on stable then once the feature is ready, > > >tested against the dev branch. If they work with stable, they SHOULD > > >work with 2.4.0. If they don't, the tickets get added to 2.4.0 to > > >make it work with that release. That way things are more predictable > > >as far as new features are concerned. (You will burn your face > > >channel). > > > > > >Does that make sense? Working on master for things causes us pain and > > >we should use git conventions to make it simpler for people who expect > > >our master to work all the time. I don't think this will speed up the > > >release as much as automating tagging of RCs so that when the JS is > > >tagged, everything else is tagged. The week it takes to tag an RC is > > >way too long. > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >> Bumping this thread. I'd like Joe to clarify as well. > > >> > > >> On 12/20/12 12:26 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > >> > > >>>Ok, I want to understand this, let me take a stab. > > >>> > > >>>You describe three long-lived branches like this: > > >>> > > >>>- Master: This is stable and frozen on the last tagged release. > > >>>- Dev: the next release to be tagged. Feature branches merged from > > >>>master when confident. > > >>>- Unstable: the current working branch for a particular tag. Feature > > >>>branches merged as needed for collaboration. > > >>> > > >>>Everyone works from local feature branch rebasing and committing to > > >>>master. When that feature branch is considered good enough, it is > > >>>merged into dev, and work continues. Whatever date we happen to pick > > >>>for a release that is what dev becomes, we tag, and move that sha to > > >>>stable if its not an RC. > > >>> > > >>>? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>>> I'm OK with this, but I think your example is off: > > >>>> > > >>>> Where n is the current released piece of the software: > > >>>> > > >>>> n.x.x = Stable > > >>>> n+1.x.x = Dev > > >>>> master = Unstable, can have things merged in from feature branches > > >>>> > > >>>> This fully uncouples features from release planning, which is good > > >>>> because it means the release will land in the version when it's > ready, > > >>>> and not for any other reason. I also propose that we keep using the > > >>>> same RC tags and that for a final release we tag it x.x.xFinal. We > > >>>> still need to tag an RC and re-tag it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Release Process: > > >>>> 1. Tag the dev tree > > >>>> 2. merge the dev tree back into master > > >>>> 3. Create 2.5.0 branch > > >>>> 4. File issues from 2.5.0 in JIRA > > >>>> > > >>>> I also propose that we automate the tagging. If an RC is broken, we > > >>>> just cut another RC. A lot of our retagging is done to get around > the > > >>>> pain of having to do another RC. The biggest part of the delay is > > >>>> waiting for every single platform maintainer to tag their platform > > >>>> after the JS was tagged. For example, I tagged rc2 for the JS and > for > > >>>> Android on Monday last week from my hotel room, and the release > wasn't > > >>>> fully tagged until this week. I'm fine with RCs going up to 10 as > > >>>> long as we can release early, release often and release when we want > > >>>> to and not run out of time and have to delay. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > >>>>> Truth. Though lets not get hung up on the past and just focus on > the > > >>>>> present. We've done a really good job getting where we are. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So, Joe, are you saying you like the idea of three long lived > > >>>>>branches > > >>>>> and merges happen from local feature branches? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>wrote: > > >>>>>> We are totally doing something wrong with the way that we do > > >>>>>>releases. > > >>>>>> I personally think that we're not using git right, and here's > why: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Currently, when we do a release, we tag the RC, and we test the > RC. > > >>>>>> There's nothing preventing us from putting things after that tag > and > > >>>>>> if we don't want to those things in the release branching off that > > >>>>>> tag. We've done it before and other than the problem with CoHo, > it > > >>>>>> worked really well. I propose that instead of tagging the > release, > > >>>>>>we > > >>>>>> branch when we want to do a release, and we do all the bug fixes > on > > >>>>>> that branch. Once that branch is ready to roll, we merge it back > > >>>>>>into > > >>>>>> master. In fact, nobody should be working on master except to do > > >>>>>> merges. The way we're doing this now feels dirty and wrong. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I honestly feel that this is a much faster way of working, and > that > > >>>>>> we're missing the point if we have to tell everyone to jump out of > > >>>>>>the > > >>>>>> pool every time we do an RC. I know that we could be working on > our > > >>>>>> branches, but that work is almost entirely invisible to the rest > of > > >>>>>> the project until it's time to merge it back in, which takes > > >>>>>>forever. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Michal Mocny < > mmo...@chromium.org > > > > > >>>>>>wrote: > > >>>>>>> So there is something to be said about having devs shift focus > from > > >>>>>>>dev to > > >>>>>>> testing during an RC. However, as the team grows, not all of us > > >>>>>>>are > > >>>>>>>really > > >>>>>>> being responsible for cutting releases. Maybe that means we need > > >>>>>>>to > > >>>>>>>train > > >>>>>>> the entire team to change current behavior, but that doesn't feel > > >>>>>>> necessary/scalable. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> With growing external contributions, I would have to say that a > > >>>>>>>code > > >>>>>>>freeze > > >>>>>>> on trunk doesn't seem to make as much sense. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -Michal > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Andrew Grieve > > >>>>>>><agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I definitely think we'd get more done if we didn't have such a > > >>>>>>>>long > > >>>>>>>> code-freeze. I'm not sure this is the same as what you were > > >>>>>>>>suggesting, but > > >>>>>>>> have a script/tool to branch all of the platforms into an rc > > >>>>>>>>branch. Then, > > >>>>>>>> each platform can fix themselves up a bit and tag their RC. > > >>>>>>>>Meanwhile, dev > > >>>>>>>> can continue to happen on edge. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> My main concern with our current approach is just that the > > >>>>>>>>code-freeze time > > >>>>>>>> is super long. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Marcel Kinard > > >>>>>>>><cmarc...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > One of the things that strikes me here is the difference > between > > >>>>>>>>calendar > > >>>>>>>> > time and effort time. (This assumes folks already concurred > that > > >>>>>>>>the rc > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> > ready to release.) Based on my reading of > > >>>>>>>>http://wiki.apache.org/** > > >>>>>>>> > cordova/CuttingReleases > > >>>>>>>><http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases>there > > >>>>>>>> isn't a lot of effort time involved to cut a release. It seems > > >>>>>>>>like > > >>>>>>>>a > > >>>>>>>> > good chunk of the calendar time is getting folks to tag their > > >>>>>>>>platform. > > >>>>>>>> > Ideally the promotion from rc to final should take very little > > >>>>>>>>effort > > >>>>>>>> time. > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > What I like about the rc is that it provides a settling > > >>>>>>>>mechanism > > >>>>>>>>for the > > >>>>>>>> > churn to calm down, run tests across more integration, and see > > >>>>>>>>the bigger > > >>>>>>>> > picture to assess release readiness. I would expect that the > > >>>>>>>>promotion > > >>>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>>> > edge to rc should take a decent amount of effort time, but not > > >>>>>>>>because of > > >>>>>>>> > the "cut" activities. > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > So when we are at rc and don't find any surprises, why does it > > >>>>>>>>take a > > >>>>>>>> week > > >>>>>>>> > to promote to final? If we spend a week in rc1, another week > in > > >>>>>>>>rc2, and > > >>>>>>>> > another week to cut final, that leaves only 1 week in a 4-week > > >>>>>>>>cycle for > > >>>>>>>> > active dev work? > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > I like the ideal of a channel/stream/branch/whatever where > there > > >>>>>>>>is a > > >>>>>>>> > place for the rc to settle without necessarily blocking > commits > > >>>>>>>>to edge. > > >>>>>>>> > Where I'm going with this is that if there is an area where > > >>>>>>>>commits to > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> > rc are carefully controlled, then perhaps one person (i.e, > Steve > > >>>>>>>>G) could > > >>>>>>>> > cut the release for ALL platforms using scripts. This may > > >>>>>>>>involve > > >>>>>>>>that > > >>>>>>>> one > > >>>>>>>> > person tagging/branching/whatever across multiple platforms. > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > I also like putting the "how to cut" magic in each platform. > > >>>>>>>>Then > > >>>>>>>>perhaps > > >>>>>>>> > a good chunk of coho is tests to make sure that the platform > > >>>>>>>>magic > > >>>>>>>> > delivered the correct format to it. > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > -- Marcel Kinard > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > >> > > > > >
