>From my understanding of git, there's nothing special about the master branch, except that it's what gets checked out when someone doesn't explicitly say which branch they want.
Joe pointed out that sometimes random people check out the code and expect it to be stable. Gord pointed out that people tend to submit pull requests assuming that master == dev branch. I think choosing between these two data points, I'd lean towards having people submit more useful pull requests. I don't think either option affects how you'd go about doing a point release. You would: 1. Check out the relevant release tag (e.g. 2.3.0) 2. Give the branch a name (e.g. branch_2.3.1) 3. Merge in all of the changes that you want to put in the point release (ideally, these would already be committed in the dev branch, be it "next" or "master"). 4. Tag the release. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Gord Tanner <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
