The founding goal we're trying to accomplish here is that we don't want everyone sitting on changes to be in the next version while we use master to prep a release.
I don't think having one branch for prepping the release and another for main development is a lot of bureaucracy. On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jesse MacFadyen <purplecabb...@gmail.com>wrote: > I have been quietly listening on this thread, but thought I should at > least share my opinion. > > I don't think adding contribution rules helps anyone. Git is > complicated enough as it is, and this just all seems like bureaucracy. > > I think master should always contain the latest stable code, and be > periodically tagged with rc's and versions. > All work should be done in personal forks and feature branches. > If the latest tag of master is an rc, then we should only be merging > bugfixes, until the release. > Immediately after tagging a version we decide which feature branches > and pull requests to pull in, and go for it. > > I don't think this is much different from what we have, but I think > that is good. > The suggestions thus far, while interesting, don't increase our > velocity in my opinion. Also, I can also pretty much guaranty I'll > screw it up for the next 3-4 versions. ( because I'm dumb ) > > Cheers, > Jesse > > > > On 2013-01-24, at 5:53 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Michael Brooks <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca > >wrote: > > > Before we move forward, I have a few questions about the "no master" > > approach. > > > > There is *no* master branch, so that community-driven pull requests will > be > >> forced to think about which branch to request against. > > > > > > - Andrew, can you cite other projects that do not use a master branch? > This project is my first time using git / github, so I don't have much to > draw from. I was going off of others' suggestions on this thread when I > proposed the names. > > > > - On Github, you must have a default branch. If not master, it must be > > something else. So, users are not forced to think about the branch to > send > > a pull request again... they will likely just use the default. > > Hmm, good point. The goal is to get people downloading Cordova for use to > end up with Stable, and for developers to send pull requests against dev. > With a forced default branch, I don't think we can accomplish this. > > > > > > - Why is the "stable" branch not just "master"? > > My thinking was that it's not obvious whether Master == bleeding edge, or > Master == Stable version. Using the names "dev" and "stable" makes it a bit > clear. > > > > So... If github forces us to have a default branch, I'm thinking that > having users send pull requests against "dev" is more valuable than having > people download the latest "stable" by default. If people are pulling code > from github rather than from our release .zip files, then it's likely they > want to hack on it anyways, or that they want the dev version to see if > bugs are fixed. > > Soo.... Here's version #3! If anyone can think of how to keep the three > branches while addressing being forced to have a default branch, feel free > to speak up! :) > > > Cordova repositories have two main branches: > 1. master > 2. next > > Topic branches exist for collaborating on features, or for code-review > purposes. > > Cordova uses tags to label releases. > - Each release candidate has a tag. e.g. "2.2.0rc1" > - Each release has a tag. e.g. "2.2.0" > - The "latest" tag points to the last stable release (this follows npm > conventions) > > > 1. The "next" branch. > - This branch is used only when in the process of doing a release. > - All tags are created from this branch. > - All release-candidate bug-fixes are done on this branch. > > 2. The "master" branch. > - When not in the release-process, all commits are made here > - When in the release-process, all non-bugfix commits are made here > - This is where topic-branches are merged into. > > Cutting a release: > 1. git checkout next && git merge --ff-only master > 2. Test test test! > 3. Fix bugs by committing them directly to "next" and then doing a non-ff > merge of next into master > 4. Tag release candidate > 5. Repeat steps 2-4 as necessary > 6. Tag the release (both by version and by updating the "latest" tag) > 7. Create distribution .zip file > 8. Test one last time using the dist files > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > >> I'm liking it. Start in 2.5? > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> Looks great Andrew! > >>> > >>> If everyone's on board, how are we going to test run this? Flip a > > switch > >>> at a certain point, give it a shot with one repo for one RC? > >>> > >>> On 1/22/13 12:29 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Braden, you're right. I've now done some local playing around in git, > > and > >>>> have an updated proposal that uses merges instead of deleting > branches. > >>>> PTAL: > >>>> > >>>> Cordova repositories have three main branches: > >>>> 1. stable > >>>> 2. next > >>>> 3. dev > >>>> > >>>> Topic branches also exist for collaborating on features, or for > >>>> code-review > >>>> purposes. > >>>> > >>>> There is *no* master branch, so that community-driven pull requests > > will > >>>> be > >>>> forced to think about which branch to request against. > >>>> > >>>> 1. The "stable" branch. > >>>> - Sits at the latest stable release of cordova > >>>> - This changes only when doing fast-forward merges from "next" > >>>> > >>>> 2. The "next" branch. > >>>> - This branch is used only when in the process of doing a release. > >>>> - All tags (both stable and RC) are done on this branch. > >>>> - All release-candidate bug-fixes are done on this branch. > >>>> > >>>> 3. The "dev" branch. > >>>> - This is where non-release-candidate commits are done > >>>> - This is where topic-branches are merged into. > >>>> > >>>> Cutting a release: > >>>> 1. git checkout next && git merge --ff-only dev > >>>> 2. Test test test! > >>>> 3. Fix bugs by committing them directly to "next" and then doing a > > non-ff > >>>> merge of next into dev > >>>> 4. Tag release candidate > >>>> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 as necessary > >>>> 6. Tag the release > >>>> 7. Create distribution .zip file > >>>> 8. Test one last time using the dist files > >>>> 9. git checkout stable && git merge --ff-only next > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Braden Shepherdson > >>>> <bra...@chromium.org>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think deleting and recreating branches with the same name can cause > >>>>> badness in git[1] because of remotes. It's not really the same branch > >> in > >>>>> terms of commits, and git thinks that your old stable and the new > >> stable > >>>>> differ by all of each of their commits. Tags can be moved > > arbitrarily, > >>>>> so I > >>>>> think stable makes sense as a tag. I'm not sure about how best to > >> handle > >>>>> next. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11844581/git-delete-and-recreate-branc > >>>>> h > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Andrew Grieve < > > agri...@chromium.org > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Michal's attending hackathons for the week, and I'm not sure we > > need > >>>>> to > >>>>> do > >>>>>> a hang-out for this, as I think we really are quite close to > >> resolving > >>>>>> this. I'd really like to resolve this ASAP so that we don't need to > >>>>> have > >>>>> a > >>>>>> code-freeze for this release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here's a proposal: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cordova repositories have three main branches: > >>>>>> 1. stable > >>>>>> 2. next > >>>>>> 3. dev > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Topic branches also exist for collaborating on features, or for > >>>>> code-review > >>>>>> purposes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is *no* master branch, so that community-driven pull requests > >>>>> will > >>>>> be > >>>>>> forced to think about which branch to request against. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. The "stable" branch. > >>>>>> - Sits at the latest stable release of cordova > >>>>>> - No one ever commits to the "stable" branch. It exists only as a > >>>>>> short-cut for checking out the latest stable tag. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. The "next" branch. > >>>>>> - This branch exists only when in the process of doing a release. > >>>>>> - All tags (both stable and RC) are done on this branch. > >>>>>> - When a stable tag is done: > >>>>>> - The existing "stable" branch is deleted > >>>>>> - A new "stable" branch is created from "next". > >>>>>> - The "next" branch is deleted. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. The "dev" branch. > >>>>>> - This is where all commits are done > >>>>>> - This is where topic-branches are merged into. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cutting a release: > >>>>>> 1. Create "next" from the HEAD of "dev" > >>>>>> 2. Test test test! > >>>>>> 3. Fix bugs by committing them to "dev" and then cherry-picking > > them > >>>>> into > >>>>>> "next" > >>>>>> 4. Tag release candidate > >>>>>> 5. Repeat steps 2-4 as necessary > >>>>>> 6. Tag the release > >>>>>> 7. Create distribution .zip file > >>>>>> 8. Test one last time using the dist files > >>>>>> 9. Delete "stable" > >>>>>> 10. Create a new "stable" by branching from the HEAD of "next" > >>>>>> 11. Delete the "next" branch > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Michal Mocny < > > mmo...@chromium.org> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Just going to throw out one of my personal requirements for > >> whatever > >>>>>>> proposal we come up with, so it doesn't get lost: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * Feature branches are great for feature work and/or large > > sweeping > >>>>>>> changes, as are JIRA bugs for tracking them, but cordova has many > >>>>> many > >>>>>>> trivial issues that could be fixed with "drive-by" patches that > >>>>> require > >>>>>> as > >>>>>>> little friction to commit as possible. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Marcel Kinard < > > cmarc...@gmail.com > >>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> How about if there is a specific straw man proposal at the > >>>>> beginning > >>>>> of > >>>>>>>> the face-time? Then the folks that are in agreement won't need > > to > >>>>> say > >>>>>>>> anything ;-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Seriously, making adjustments to something tangible is easier > >> than > >>>>>>>> instantiating it from scratch. A volunteer for a very simple > >>>>> writeup > >>>>> on > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> wiki? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- Marcel Kinard > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 1/14/2013 10:06 PM, Michal Mocny wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Okay gentlemen, I think there have been countless good points > >>>>> made > >>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>> parties, but also some bike-shedding. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Perhaps it is time to schedule some face-time to better > >>>>> articulate > >>>>>> some > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>> the finer points, and to help come to some consensus? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -Michal > > >
