Also a problem we have encountered with using a 'next' branch for active development is from third party commits.
Every single 3rd party pull request is going to come into master. You can ether: 1. tell them to redo it on next 2. rebase it into next for them and let them know for next time. The cost of option 2 gets more the longer it takes to release. A 3rd party pull request coming in could be based on code that is 2+ months old. This isn't a vote against a development branch, but a small annoyance we have run into. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Gord Tanner <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote: > A hot fix is usually branched off of master, tested, merged and released. > > We then rebase / merge the hotfix up into next. > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Also: while I personally prefer master to be the dev channel, I will say >> that I do like Gord's suggestion of how its done in ripple in that the >> name >> of the dev branch is 'next' and not '2.3.0' so that your dev setup doesn't >> need to change every month. >> >> Gord: how do you deal with bugfixes/point releases? Do you fix in feature >> branch, merge into next, and then cherry-pick/merge just that fix into >> master before doing a major release? Or, do you just offer bugfixes via >> 'next'? >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> > 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 >> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
