I noticed on iOS the commits going into next are mirrored on master. For Android that was not done.
What is the correct process? On 2/20/13 10:12 AM, "Michal Mocny" <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: >oooo I didn't know that. Thanks! > > >On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Becky Gibson ><gibson.be...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
