The majority consensus is to have master point to our 1.x baseline going forward. Unless there are any strong objections I will set everything up on Monday (4/4) morning.
- Create a 0.x branch for all future 0.x releases based on the current state of master. - Apply all 1.x commits from the temporary 1.x branch to master. - Delete the temporary 1.x branch. - Update the quickstart page and contribution guide to detail the distinction between the 0.x and master branches. - Send another email to @dev once this has been completed. Reminder: Going forward once this has been completed all commits will need to be made to both branches as appropriate. Thanks! Matt On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Matt Gilman <matt.c.gil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matt, > > I agree that the PRs would need to be merged to both baselines at > contribution time. If the contribution applies cleanly the reviewer could > certainly handle the commit themselves. However, if additional code changes > are required because the baselines have diverged, the contributor would > probably need to submit another PR. This additional effort should only be > necessary until we're able to perform the first 1.x release. > > Aldrin, > > I definitely understand your thoughts regarding (1) and (2). This is why I > wanted to pose the options before just jumping into one approach vs the > other. I personally prefer the GitHub style PR process. I realize this is > more cumbersome but hopefully the number of conflicts should be small as > folks are already starting to focus their efforts on the framework for 1.x. > > Matt > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think I prefer option 2 considering, what may be the incorrect >> assumption, that rebasing 1.x on 0.x / pushing into 1.x would be easier. >> Based on outstanding PRs/Patches in conjunction with release cadence there >> will be more 0.x releases planned. Until we reached the point where the >> first 1.x release is in sight, I think (2) makes sense just from >> minimizing >> impedance where the majority of effort will occur (new/updated extensions) >> and then switching to (1) when we are scheduling 1.x as next (exclusive of >> any patch builds). This seems to work out when I try to reason about it, >> but admittedly, am coming at this heavily from my own anecdotal >> perspective >> given my flow of reviewing. >> >> Matt, excellent points to consider. >> >> Do not want to go too much on a tangent from the current conversation, but >> I think we need to harness automation as much as possible. Not sure >> Travis >> can do this or do so easily (short of two PRs) and this may arguably shift >> things in favor of patches and the model that the other ASF projects >> utilize with buildbot. Getting as much done asynchronously for us is >> obviously important but we also have to strive to avoid a contrib process >> that is too cumbersome as well. >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Matt Burgess <mattyb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I like option 1 as well. >> > >> > In the case where a fix is to be put into both branches, will the >> developer >> > be responsible for issuing 2 PRs / patches, one against each branch? >> This >> > would help in the case that the PR/patch against 0.x won't merge cleanly >> > into master; however the reviewer(s) would need to make sure there were >> no >> > breaking changes as a result of the manual merge to master. An >> alternative >> > is that the reviewer(s) do the forward-port, which I don't think is a >> good >> > idea. However the reviewer would need to make sure the PR(s) are against >> > the correct branch. For example, all current PRs would need to be >> > "backported" to the new 0.x branch. >> > >> > Also, I would think the PRs/patches need to be merged at the same time >> (or >> > soon), to avoid regressions (i.e. a bug fix going into 0.x but getting >> > forgotten/missed for 1.x). >> > >> > Thoughts? Thanks, >> > Matt >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > I too prefer option 1 >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: >> > > > I agree with Tony on option 1. I think it makes sense for master >> to >> > be >> > > > the most "advanced" branch. New features will then always be >> applied >> > to >> > > > master, and optionally to other branches for older version support >> as >> > > > applicable / desired. >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:16 AM Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> I like option 1 >> > > >> On Mar 29, 2016 10:03 AM, "Matt Gilman" <matt.c.gil...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > Hello, >> > > >> > >> > > >> > With NiFi 0.6.0 officially released and our support strategy >> defined >> > > [1], >> > > >> > I'd like to revisit and propose some options for supporting both >> a >> > 1.x >> > > >> > branch and 0.x branch concurrently. We need an official place >> where >> > > these >> > > >> > efforts can be worked, contributed to, and collaborated with the >> > > >> community. >> > > >> > I've already created a 1.x branch as a temporary place for this >> > > codebase >> > > >> to >> > > >> > live until we agree to an approach. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Either option I'm proposing will require >> PRs/contributions/patches >> > to >> > > be >> > > >> > applied to both branches as applicable. This means that the >> > > contributor >> > > >> or >> > > >> > the reviewer will need to be able to apply the commits in both >> > places >> > > if >> > > >> > it's necessary. For instance, framework code has already started >> > > >> diverging >> > > >> > from the current master so any framework change may not need to >> be >> > > >> applied >> > > >> > to both if the changeset is not applicable to the 1.x baseline. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > The only question at the moment is what master will refer to. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > 1) Create a branch for 0.x and allow master to become the 1.x >> > baseline >> > > >> > going forward. Future 0.x releases will be performed from the 0.x >> > > branch. >> > > >> > 2) Continuing working on the 1.x branch as is. Allow master to >> > > continue >> > > >> to >> > > >> > servicing 0.x releases. Once a 1.x release is made, create the >> 0.x >> > > branch >> > > >> > and then allow master to service 1.x releases. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > In short, when do we want master to point to the 1.x baseline? >> When >> > > >> should >> > > >> > we create a branch where 0.x releases will be made from. >> Regardless, >> > > >> > contributions will need to be performed to both places as >> > applicable. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Matt >> > > >> > >> > > >> > [1] >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> > > >> > >> > > >> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Richard Miskin < >> > > r.p.mis...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > I guess it will depend how much change is expected on the >> > > maintenance >> > > >> > > branches, >> > > >> > > but if you want every change in the maintenance branch to go >> into >> > > the >> > > >> > > main-line branch then there is little difference from a >> conflict >> > > point >> > > >> of >> > > >> > > view >> > > >> > > between a series of cherry-picks and a merge. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Either way, it is just another approach to consider. There’s >> more >> > > than >> > > >> > one >> > > >> > > way to do it, and I suspect there isn’t any solution that >> makes it >> > > >> > trivial. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > >> > > Richard >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On 27 Feb 2016, at 14:43, Aldrin Piri <aldrinp...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > On board with Tony's points. I think the realities of >> merging >> > in >> > > >> > > practice >> > > >> > > > when that "breaking point" of sorts occurs will make the >> > > complexity >> > > >> and >> > > >> > > > overhead quite difficult and maybe even more error prone than >> > the >> > > >> > cherry >> > > >> > > > picking approach with some additional guidelines. When the >> > > codebase >> > > >> > > > drastically changes, the merge conflicts could be quite >> severe >> > and >> > > >> > > without >> > > >> > > > a good knowledge of each part of the codebase involved during >> > that >> > > >> > > process, >> > > >> > > > a committer may introduce regressions. >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> the reason I like applying patches to both lines is that >> once >> > > code >> > > >> > > begins >> > > >> > > >> to diverge, cleanly merging into one codebase can be >> > impossible. >> > > >> > having >> > > >> > > >> good practices for managing patches and where they apply is >> > > >> paramount >> > > >> > > for >> > > >> > > >> success. >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> I expect that divergence to happen with 1.x. I wanted to get >> > in a >> > > >> > battle >> > > >> > > >> rhythm of sorts of managing multiple lines, even if the >> patches >> > > >> COULD >> > > >> > be >> > > >> > > >> applied to both in the manner you described. >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> Joe W and I did a wee bit of scrambling to ensure that >> tickets >> > > >> marked >> > > >> > > for >> > > >> > > >> 0.5.1 had the right patches in the support branch, and some >> > > didn't, >> > > >> > so I >> > > >> > > >> think "lesson learned". I do like in the apache >> infrastructure >> > > that >> > > >> if >> > > >> > > >> commits have the appropriate ticket in their commit message, >> > the >> > > >> jira >> > > >> > > will >> > > >> > > >> have the list of commits and branches those commits were >> > applies >> > > to. >> > > >> > > >> However, I think we may need to revisit commit message >> > > "hygiene" if >> > > >> > we >> > > >> > > >> relied on this instead of more manual review. >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Richard Miskin < >> > > >> r.p.mis...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >>> Hi, >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> On a couple of work projects we found that the approach of >> > > >> > > cherry-picking >> > > >> > > >>> commits can lead to an unnecessarily complicated history >> where >> > > the >> > > >> > same >> > > >> > > >>> piece of work appears as multiple separate commits on >> > different >> > > >> > > branches. >> > > >> > > >>> This can then make it hard to be confident that a bug fix >> has >> > > been >> > > >> > > >> applied >> > > >> > > >>> to all relevant branches. We found that it works better to >> aim >> > > to >> > > >> > > commit >> > > >> > > >>> changes to the lowest applicable branch, and then regularly >> > > merge >> > > >> > those >> > > >> > > >>> branches to master. This approach is based on the git-flow >> > > model ( >> > > >> > > >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ < >> > > >> > > >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/>). >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> Looking at the repo there are already a few commits that >> are >> > > >> > duplicated >> > > >> > > >> on >> > > >> > > >>> master and 0.5.1. Using the model I suggest they’d only >> occur >> > on >> > > >> > 0.5.1, >> > > >> > > >> and >> > > >> > > >>> then that branch would get merged to master. >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> Having the merge commits from the support branch to master >> > > makes it >> > > >> > > >>> explicit in the git history that all bug fixes (and >> associated >> > > >> tests) >> > > >> > > >> have >> > > >> > > >>> been pulled through to master. >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> Cheers, >> > > >> > > >>> Richard >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>>> On 26 Feb 2016, at 06:59, James Wing <jvw...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> Thanks, Joe, let me try rephrasing a few of those and see >> if >> > > you >> > > >> > > agree: >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the >> next >> > > minor >> > > >> > > >>> release, >> > > >> > > >>>> currently 0.6.0, by default? >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> By default, commits to master will be released in the next >> > > major >> > > >> or >> > > >> > > >> minor >> > > >> > > >>>> release. No commits are included in incremental/patch >> > > releases by >> > > >> > > >>> default. >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained? >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> support/0.5.x will be maintained until the first of the >> > > following >> > > >> > > >> events: >> > > >> > > >>>> a.) 0.6.0 is released (next minor release in major release >> > > line) >> > > >> > > >>>> b.) One year after 1.0.0 is released ("previous major >> release >> > > >> lines >> > > >> > up >> > > >> > > >> to >> > > >> > > >>>> one year since the last minor release (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in >> that >> > > >> line") >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> But additional support might be available by special >> request. >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a >> > future >> > > >> major >> > > >> > > >>>> release stored? Is it visible anywhere? >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> I suppose Jira tickets targeting the next major release >> > > >> > > >>> could/should/would >> > > >> > > >>>> (do?) push branches. That seems weak in the face of a >> > probable >> > > >> > > >> stampede >> > > >> > > >>>> towards the fire exit of a major release, but it's a >> start. >> > > I'm >> > > >> not >> > > >> > > >>> aware >> > > >> > > >>>> of any great solutions here, certainly not for an >> open-source >> > > >> > project. >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Joe Witt < >> > joe.w...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> James, >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> These are great questions to frame and test the model. So >> > > let's >> > > >> > > >>>>> attempt to address them agains the model. >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> Here is the language for that model at this time: >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> - We support the newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and >> > any >> > > >> > > previous >> > > >> > > >>>>> major release lines up to one year since the last minor >> > > release >> > > >> > > >>>>> (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> - When master has no releases we will backport any >> > appropriate >> > > >> > > changes >> > > >> > > >>>>> (fix, feature, enhancement) to the previous major release >> > line >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> - Any security or data loss related fixes should be back >> > > ported >> > > >> to >> > > >> > > all >> > > >> > > >>>>> supported major release lines >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> - Fixes, improvements, features will be applied to the >> next >> > > >> release >> > > >> > > >>>>> (minor or incremental) within a given major release line >> and >> > > will >> > > >> > > only >> > > >> > > >>>>> be back ported on a case by case basis for fixes >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> - In order to consider a patch for back porting to a >> > previous >> > > >> minor >> > > >> > > >>>>> release line a request needs to be made to the developer >> or >> > > user >> > > >> > > >>>>> mailing list with a successful discussion and a release >> > > candidate >> > > >> > > >>>>> produced' >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> So with those above let's review 1 through 5 in turn. >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the >> next >> > > >> minor >> > > >> > > >>>>> release, currently 0.6.0, by default? >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> Master is for whatever is the most leading edge release >> line >> > > >> > working >> > > >> > > >>>>> toward the next release. At the time that a minor >> release >> > > occurs >> > > >> > > >>>>> against that release line then it branches off into a >> > > >> support/x.y.* >> > > >> > > >>>>> branch for any further efforts against it. >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are >> there >> > > >> > > >>> restrictions >> > > >> > > >>>>> before or after releases? >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> I believe master would be always open for new code. From >> > some >> > > >> > point >> > > >> > > >>>>> at which a release is considered feature complete then >> > further >> > > >> > > feature >> > > >> > > >>>>> enhancements need to go on master as part of the next >> > release >> > > >> > effort. >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained? >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> The most recent minor release line of a major line will >> be >> > > >> > supported >> > > >> > > >>>>> for up to one year from whenever it was released where >> > > support is >> > > >> > for >> > > >> > > >>>>> bug fixes for security or data loss related items. >> Releases >> > > for >> > > >> > > older >> > > >> > > >>>>> minor lines should be considered on a case by case basis >> and >> > > if >> > > >> > > >>>>> requested. Otherwise the basic premise is the train is >> > moving >> > > >> > > >>>>> forward. >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a >> > future >> > > >> > major >> > > >> > > >>>>> release stored? Is it visible anywhere? >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> It must be visible. It should be placed into a branch >> until >> > > such >> > > >> > > >>>>> time that it is ready to become the new master. That >> time >> > > would >> > > >> be >> > > >> > > >>>>> when the next release will be for that line. When I >> think >> > > about >> > > >> > this >> > > >> > > >>>>> against the stated model we could probably tweak the >> wording >> > > to >> > > >> > > better >> > > >> > > >>>>> articulate that. I think it was what was meant with >> 'when >> > > master >> > > >> > has >> > > >> > > >>>>> no releases we will backport...' but that is unclear. >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would >> > > eligible >> > > >> to >> > > >> > be >> > > >> > > >>>>> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x >> line, >> > or >> > > to >> > > >> > all >> > > >> > > >>> minor >> > > >> > > >>>>> releases in the 0.x line? >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> Only to the most recent minor release of any still >> supported >> > > >> major >> > > >> > > >>>>> line. However, the catch of 'case by case' determination >> > for >> > > >> older >> > > >> > > >>>>> minor lines is still in play. Basically if someone >> requests >> > > it >> > > >> and >> > > >> > > >>>>> can get enough momentum for it then it should be no >> problem >> > to >> > > >> > > produce >> > > >> > > >>>>> such a release. >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks >> > > >> > > >>>>> Joe >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, James Wing < >> > jvw...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>> I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the >> > > branching >> > > >> > > >> model: >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the >> > next >> > > >> minor >> > > >> > > >>>>> release, >> > > >> > > >>>>>> currently 0.6.0, by default? >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are >> > there >> > > >> > > >>> restrictions >> > > >> > > >>>>>> before or after releases? >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained? >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a >> > > future >> > > >> > major >> > > >> > > >>>>>> release stored? Is it visible anywhere? >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would >> > > eligible >> > > >> to >> > > >> > > be >> > > >> > > >>>>>> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x >> line, >> > > or to >> > > >> > all >> > > >> > > >>>>> minor >> > > >> > > >>>>>> releases in the 0.x line? >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt < >> > > joe.w...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it >> more >> > > >> toward >> > > >> > a >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start >> > > >> executing >> > > >> > > >> some >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> of these approaches. We're actually already seeing it >> > take >> > > >> form >> > > >> > in >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which >> is >> > for >> > > >> > 0.6.0 >> > > >> > > >> at >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> this point). >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other >> > > thread >> > > >> [1] >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> where we outline a support model: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> - We will have a branch for each major release line >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest >> > > major >> > > >> > > >> release >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> line under active development >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> - Commits against master should be evaluated for >> whether >> > > they >> > > >> > > should >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release >> > > lines >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> consistent with the community support model >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated >> and >> > > the >> > > >> > > >> version >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> for that major line will be bumped to the next >> incremental >> > > >> > release >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> snapshot >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> - The next commit on a given major release line that >> > > requires a >> > > >> > > >> minor >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> version change should increment the minor version >> number >> > and >> > > >> > reset >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> incremental to zero >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted >> from >> > > the >> > > >> > > master >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants >> > changing >> > > >> the >> > > >> > > >> major >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> version at which point a major release line branch >> should >> > be >> > > >> > > created >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> off of master for the previous major release line >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> [1] >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> Thanks >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> Joe >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt < >> > > joe.w...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> I don't want to kill this thread. It is good to >> discuss >> > > >> > specific >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> tooling/procedures. But I do want to get some >> consensus >> > > >> > > discussion >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> around Tony's original intent (as I read it). So >> kicked >> > > off a >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> discussion back at that level. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc < >> > > trk...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the >> > > plugins >> > > >> > that >> > > >> > > >> are >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> used. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately >> not >> > > open >> > > >> > > >> source) >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> that >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a >> > > plugin. >> > > >> > > Nice >> > > >> > > >>>>> side >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> effect is that I believe this got me better at using >> > git, >> > > and >> > > >> > > >>>>> generally >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> we >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> all got better at managing merge pain. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating >> > the >> > > way >> > > >> > we >> > > >> > > >> are >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> now is >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a >> > > patch is >> > > >> > > "can >> > > >> > > >>> be >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to >> > make >> > > >> this >> > > >> > > >> even >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> easier >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a >> > > bugfix >> > > >> is >> > > >> > > >>>>> "patch >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in >> > > >> progress, >> > > >> > > >>>>> master, >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> and >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> several other versions we're supporting, with >> possibly >> > > >> > > drastically >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> different code", well then things get interesting. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies < >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> bimargul...@gmail.com> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> The issue tracker >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> might also prove useful in evaluating it. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It >> worked >> > > >> great, >> > > >> > > >>>>> until >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> it >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, >> > merge >> > > >> > > >> problems. >> > > >> > > >>>>> No >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> one seemed to be maintaining it. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> There's a new offering in this dept: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft < >> > > >> > a...@adamtaft.com >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it >> in >> > > >> > > >> combination >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> with >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maven. It's ideal that the tags and releases are >> > > tracking >> > > >> > > >>>>> closely >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> with >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maven pom.xml version. gitflow, on its own, >> doesn't >> > > keep >> > > >> > the >> > > >> > > >> pom >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> version >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> updated with the git release names. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Because of the general importance of keeping >> releases >> > > and >> > > >> > tags >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> synchronized >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it >> > needs >> > > to >> > > >> be >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> approached >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with tools that are available through maven rather >> > than >> > > >> from >> > > >> > > >> git. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> The >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't >> directly >> > > help >> > > >> > > deal >> > > >> > > >>>>> with >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> this >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a >> maven >> > > tool. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I've been using, with reasonable success, the >> > jgitflow >> > > [1] >> > > >> > > >>>>> plugin, >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> which >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow >> model >> > > for a >> > > >> > > >> maven >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> project. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it >> > > insists >> > > >> > > that >> > > >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> master >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> branch is strictly used for published release tags >> > (as >> > > per >> > > >> > the >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> strict >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> gitflow workflow). I just mention this, in >> reference >> > > to >> > > >> how >> > > >> > > >> some >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> plugins >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization >> > > issue. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/ >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry < >> > > >> > > >>>>> thadgui...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow. >> Your >> > > >> Master >> > > >> > > >>>>> become >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> primary >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> development of next release (with feature >> branches >> > > off of >> > > >> > > >> it).. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> while >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> you >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to have release branches that can have >> hot >> > > fix >> > > >> > > >> branches >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> off of >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> them. (don't use Master as your release branch >> ! - >> > > bad >> > > >> > > >>>>> practice ! >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> ) >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy >> for >> > > >> > everyone >> > > >> > > >> to >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the >> > > >> > understanding. >> > > >> > > >> Its >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> really >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that easy. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/ >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most large projects have moved into using >> git-flow >> > ... >> > > >> and >> > > >> > > >> tools >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> like >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have >> > > Git-flow >> > > >> > > either >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> built >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in or >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> plugin available now. If you want to live on the >> > > command >> > > >> > > >> line, >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> then >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> that >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is handled easily by the instructions in the >> above >> > > link. >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thad >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >>> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
