Could you elaborate on what the workflow would be if we merged only from Feature branches?
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > So, what if Canonical branches only received merges from Feature > branches...? > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> >But do Canonical branches merge into each other? I'm thinking no. > >> > >> My understanding: > >> > >> - work goes into feature branches > >> - when contributor(s) deem feature is ready, merge into Unstable, which > >> then gets vetted (test!!!!!) > >> - at some point unstable merges into Next > >> - when tagging, we merge Next into Stable and tag > >> > > > > That's my understanding as well. > > > > The "At some point" part would be when we say "hey, let's start working > on > > cutting a release", which should align with the wiki's > > RoadMap<http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/RoadmapProjects> (which > > targeted 2.3 for November, whoops!). > > > > > >> > >> Would be different for bug fixes or other maintenance-type commits too, > >> ya? Those would be directly into Next. > >> > > It might cause headaches to commit bug-fixes into Next when it comes time > > to merge Unstable -> Next. > > > > > >> > >> Finally, what about hot fixes / patch releases? Branch off the tag in > >> Stable and put hot patch work into there? > >> > > Agree. I think the flow here should be to commit change to Unstable and > > then cherry-pick it into a branch off the tag (when feasible). >
