Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be Really Useful Engines.
[1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ Brandon On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt <joew...@apache.org> wrote: > Resending > On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Team, > > > > It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider > > dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, > > in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that > > thread. > > > > [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on > > entry to the incubator. > > > > And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood > > when the wise Mr Benson said it: > > > > "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch is > > supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin won't > > do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use > > gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, > > the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." > > > > I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother > > with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having > > done the release management job now a couple of times including having > > done a 'hotfix'. > > > > My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept in > > general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi community > > it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW > > [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) > > >
