And all this leads me to think that the concerns/worries may not really be warranted, this process just codifies best practices and adds one new thing, which is “develop’ as the default WIP branch.
On Jun 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: Which translates into exactly what you suggest if we are maintaining release branches. On Jun 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: Actually I think git flow would merge it into master and tag it with an annotated tag like “0.13.0.jira-123” to reference the bug fix or some other naming scheme. Since the bug is “important” it is treated like what the blog post calls a “hotfix” so the head of master is still stable with hotfixes applied even if the merge does not warrant a binary release. The master branch hygiene is maintained by checking WIP into develop or a feature branch, hotfixes and releases go into master. There is also a mechanism to maintain release branches if the project warrants, which may be true of Mahout. On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Trevor Grant <trevor.d.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: So right now, if there was a bug in 0.13.0 that needed an important patch- why not just merge it into master and git branch "branch-0.13.0" On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> wrote: > PS. but i see the rational. to have stable fixes to get into release. > perhaps named release branches is still a way to go if one cuts them early > enough. > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> > wrote: >> >> Since merges are done by committers, it’s easy to retarget a > contributor’s >>> PRs but committers would PR against develop, >> >> IMO it is anything but easy to resolve conflicts, let alone somebody >> else's. Spark just asks me to resolve them myself. But if you don't have >> proper target, you can't ask the contributor. >> >> and some projects like PredictionIO make develop the default branch on >>> github so it's the one contributors get by default. >>> >> That would fix it but i am not sure if we have access to HEAD on github >> mirror. Might involve INFRA to do it And in that case it would amount >> little more but renaming. It would seem it is much easier to create a >> branch, "stable master" or something, and consider master to be ongoing > PR >> base. >> >> -1 on former, -0 on the latter. Judging from the point of both > contributor >> and committer (of which I am both).it will not make my life easy on > either >> end. >> >> >
