I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more about it being confusing. We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing that they checked out doesn't have what they expect.
Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of times to new VM's and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go down, it's important to weigh pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to confusion for newcomers (thereby discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong benefits. That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this environment, so I would be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > From: a...@adamtaft.com > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process can > be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the > jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and > manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it avoids > common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. > > Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider tooling > that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab > flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because it's > "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it better. > > [1] > http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ > > [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, >> then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This >> would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. >> >> That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and >> maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod branch >> would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off production, >> or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, but >> if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth it. >> >> -Bryan >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: >> >>> 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) >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
