Thank you, Michael! I do usually go a git push --dry-run to check that I am pushing what I expect but I'll try the diff as well.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > So there is also http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases which may > be useful (esp Taggin section). > > As far as the confusion with the two branch names: "topic_branch" is your > local working branch for a bugfix/feature, and "to_be_merged" is really > "temporary_new_name_for_a_branch_to_do_rebase_in". I usually skip that > step and take the risk or rebasing in topic_branch (aside: this may > negatively affect diffs if you push updates for a review-edit-re-review > cycle -- but this isn't an issue for cordova). > > Do not checkout 'next' into your master branch. Update your local branches > to include the remote next branch (with 'git pull apache' with no branch) > then you can switch to the next branch locally, apply your patch there, and > push to that remote branch directly. Later, merge that commit into master > locally, and push that. > > Do not push to apache next from your local master, or else you will push > all the changes. > > I agree, this is a little confusing, but after a few practice runs it > should be easy to figure out. You should probably also check what would be > pushed with 'git diff apache/[target-branch]' or tag on --stat to that to > just see that files that would signal a quick "uh-oh". > > I'll work to update the wiki later today, and likely others will have more > tips on how to make sure we don't make mistakes. > > -Michal > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Becky Gibson <gibson.be...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Can someone please provide a "git cordova release process for dummies" > > example to make sure I do the release commits and merges properly (the > > committerWorkflow example didn't help me as I didn't understand the > > topic_branch and to_be_merged distinction) > > > > At any rate, can I do a git checkout apache next into my "master" branch? > > Then I can checkout my working_branch, rebase master (which contains > the > > next code) checkout master, merge my fix and push apache next. > > git checkout apache next > > git checkout working_branch_with_fix > > git rebase master > > git checkout master > > git merge working_branch_with_fix > > git push apache next > > > > and then repeat this for apache master with the possibility of needing to > > use -ff when I merge. Am I on the right track? > > > > humbled by git, > > -becky > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Marcel Kinard <cmarc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Nice! Thanks, Andrew! > > > > > > -- Marcel Kinard > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > The doc's not up-to-date, but I think we ended on consensus for the > > code > > > > version. I've taken a stab at updating the wiki pages: > > > > > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CordovaAndGit -- Added the idea of > > > having > > > > both a master and a next branch > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CommitterWorkflow -- Added Jesse's > > > version > > > > of the "which branch - in code" > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases -- Changed tagging > > > > instructions to refer to the "next" branch > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Marcel Kinard <cmarc...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> With 2.5 starting, it appears time to poke this thread. > > > >> > > > >> - Is the Google doc refreshed with the latest consensus? > > > >> - If so, should the Google doc be transferred to a wiki page? > > > >> - Have the necessary branches been created? > > > >> - Are we all in the boat, and understand how to row this beast? > > > >> > > > >> -- Marcel Kinard > > > >> > > > >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Nice Shaz, but I was hoping it was a github style network > > visualization > > > >>> that included a few versions worth of merges. > > > >>> Who wants to draw that? > > > >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Inline image got mangled, here it is linked: http://cl.ly/MOrD > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks for the pseudocode Andrew, seems simpler to understand ;) > > > >> Jesse's > > > >>>>> re-factor makes it even easier. Here's my contrib for those more > > > >> visually > > > >>>>> inclined: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> [image: Inline image 2] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Grieve < > > agri...@chromium.org > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Nice! even simpler. :) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying Andrew. et al, I guess I was > > > mis-understanding > > > >>>>>> some > > > >>>>>>> of the earlier discussion around naming stuff. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> So everything is going to master all the time, and we only care > > > about > > > >>>>>>> 'next' if we are inReleaseMode and it is a bug fix? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> if(inReleaseMode && isBugFix) { > > > >>>>>>> commitToBranch('next'); > > > >>>>>>> mergeBranch('next').into('master'); > > > >>>>>>> } > > > >>>>>>> else { > > > >>>>>>> commitToBranch('master'); > > > >>>>>>> } > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Grieve < > > > >> agri...@chromium.org > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Just to clarify - there should be *no* using of the git > > > >>>>>> cherry-picking > > > >>>>>>>> command, only git merge. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Jesse - not sure what you're referring to with "branch must be > > > named > > > >>>>>> x". > > > >>>>>>>> The latest revision of the proposal has only two branches: > > master > > > >> and > > > >>>>>>> next. > > > >>>>>>>> Do you mean you don't like the name "next"? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Maybe the proposal will seem simpler if put in the form of > code > > :) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> if (!inReleaseMode) { > > > >>>>>>>> commitToBranch('master'); > > > >>>>>>>> } else { > > > >>>>>>>> if (isBugFix) { > > > >>>>>>>> commitToBranch('next'); > > > >>>>>>>> mergeBranch('next').into('master'); > > > >>>>>>>> } else { > > > >>>>>>>> commitToBranch('master'); > > > >>>>>>>> } > > > >>>>>>>> } > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Braden Shepherdson < > > > >>>>>> bra...@chromium.org > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Most of the time the flow will be unchanged: push to master. > > > >>>>>> Tagging > > > >>>>>>>> things > > > >>>>>>>>> we already know how to do; that doesn't change. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> The only new flow for most people is cherrypicking bug fixes > > from > > > >>>>>>> master > > > >>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>> next, which we can give examples of. Plus that could remain > the > > > >>>>>>>>> responsibility of the main platform maintainers, who are > doing > > > the > > > >>>>>>>> tagging. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Braden > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jesse < > > purplecabb...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Braden Shepherdson < > > > >>>>>>>>> bra...@chromium.org > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> It is not, the 'branch must be named x' is mainly where I > have > > > >>>>>>>> concerns. > > > >>>>>>>>>> Really I just want things simple. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>> @purplecabbage > > > >>>>>>>>>> risingj.com > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> @purplecabbage > > > >>>>>>> risingj.com > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> @purplecabbage > > > >>> risingj.com > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
